Download The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and

Genomics of
Obesity
The Application of Public Health Genomics
to the Prevention and Management of
Obesity in the UK
February 2013
Authors: Louise M. Aston and Mark Kroese
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge with thanks the following colleagues at the PHG Foundation for
invaluable discussions and input throughout the production of this report: Hilary Burton, Ron Zimmern, Gurdeep
Sagoo, Alison Hall, Nina Hallowell, Anna Pokorska-Bocci, Sowmiya Moorthie; and also Giles Yeo, Director of
Genomics/Transcriptomics at the Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, for expert review
and comment.
This report can be downloaded from our website:
www.phgfoundation.org
Published by PHG Foundation
2 Worts Causeway
Cambridge
CB1 8RN
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 740200
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 740892
© 2013 PHG Foundation
ISBN 978-1-907198-11-3
Correspondence to:
[email protected]
How to reference this report:
Genomics of Obesity. PHG Foundation (2013), ISBN 978-1-907198-11-3
The PHG Foundation is the working name of the Foundation for Genomics and Population Health, an
independent charitable organisation (registered in England and Wales, charity No. 1118664 company No.
5823194), which works with partners to achieve better health through the responsible and evidence-based
application of biomedical science.
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Contents
Executive Summary
2
1
Obesity: what is the problem? 5
1.2
Consequences of obesity: why are we concerned?
8
1.3
Prevention and treatment of obesity in the UK
10
1.4
Determinants of obesity
16
2
Obesity susceptibility genes 18
2.1
Identification of susceptibility genes 18
2.2
Monogenic obesity 19
2.3
Common obesity 24
2.5
Summary 36
3.
Genetic testing in obesity 37
3.1
Evaluation of genetic test 37
3.2
Genetic testing for monogenic obesity 39
3.3 Genetic testing for common obesity 42
3.4 Summary 44
4. Conclusions and recommendations 45
4.1 Recommendations: Polygenic obesity 46
4.2 Recommendations: Monogenic obesity 46
References 47
Appendix 51
Executive Summary
Overweight and obesity are “abnormal or excessive
fat accumulation that may impair health”, as measured
using body mass index (BMI), a simple index of weightfor-height.
Genetic differences
between individuals
are responsible for
a large proportion
(40% to 70%) of the
differences in BMI
between individuals
within populations.
Currently, more than two-thirds of men and more than half of women aged
16 years and over in England are either overweight or obese. Prevalence has
risen rapidly over recent years, and this trend is predicted to continue. Excess
weight is also occurring earlier in life, with more than one-fifth of children aged
4-5 years and more than one-third of those aged 10-11 years in England being
overweight or obese.
Obesity is causally linked to a number of the leading causes of mortality and
morbidity in the UK, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some
cancers, mental health problems and musculoskeletal disorders. Obesity also
has a significant economic impact, with high costs to the health service and to
the wider economy through lost working days.
The current policy approach to obesity in the UK is based on the belief that
maintenance of a healthy weight is the ultimate responsibility of the individual,
whilst the role of government and wider society is to ensure people have
access to healthy options and to the information and guidance they need to
adopt healthier lifestyles. NICE provide guidance on weight management for
adults, children and pregnant women, and commissioning of services in line
with these takes place at the local level of the NHS. Whilst specific obesity
services and care pathways differ between areas, they are typically based on a
four-tier system of increasing intervention intensity for increasing severity and
complexity of the condition.
Determinants of obesity
Obesity is a complex, multifactorial condition. It is ultimately caused by an
energy imbalance, where intake exceeds expenditure. However, this imbalance
is underpinned by multiple complex and interacting biological, societal and
behavioural determinants. The leading determinants of obesity in an individual
are not necessarily those that are driving the increase in prevalence in the
population. The extremely rapid rise in prevalence implicates environmental
rather than genetic causes at the population level, and our environment
favours weight gain through provision of plentiful, energy-dense foods and
little need for obligatory energy expenditure as part of normal daily life.
However, some individuals manage to maintain a healthy body weight in the
face of this, and whether or not an individual becomes obese in an ‘obesogenic’
environment is likely to be determined in part by their genetic susceptibility.
2
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
The genetic basis of obesity
Genetic differences between individuals are responsible for a large proportion
(40% to 70%) of the differences in BMI between individuals within populations.
However despite this, UK guidelines and policy for the prevention and
management of obesity focus on environmental causes with little mention of
the role of genetics, other than in particularly severe or complicated cases. This
perhaps reflects the relative understanding of these determinants, with far less
known about the genetic basis of obesity than the environmental contributors.
Technological advances are currently facilitating improved understanding
of the genetic basis of obesity. Over the past two decades, examination of
patients with severe early-onset obesity has identified a number of highly
penetrant monogenic disorders in which obesity is the primary feature.
Eight genes and one large deletion have been implicated to date, and these
discoveries have contributed greatly to understanding of the biological
mechanisms involved in the development of obesity. All of these genes have a
role in the central regulation of energy intake, with defects in them disrupting
appetite and satiety mechanisms. Patients with these monogenic conditions
are severely hyperphagic, displaying a greatly increased drive to eat and
consuming far more energy than individuals without these mutations. At
present, there is little evidence that mutations in the identified genes have an
effect on energy expenditure (the other side of the energy balance equation) in
humans, although this could be a result of difficulty in measurement.
In contrast, far less is known about the genetic basis of ‘common’ obesity in the
general population. Large genome-wide association studies have identified
32 loci robustly associated with BMI. Several of these loci indicate genes
which are highly expressed or known to act in the central nervous system,
further emphasising the role of central regulation in obesity susceptibility. In
addition, several of the loci include or are near to genes in which rare variants
cause severe monogenic forms of obesity. Most of the 32 loci, however, are
for markers that are not in known genes. Further work is therefore required
to elucidate the responsible genes and thereby the functions and pathways
involved.
The application of public health genomics to obesity management
Whilst research into the genetics of obesity has increased the understanding of
obesity biology, a primary aim and key application of the discovery of diseaseassociated genes and variants is to enable genetic testing of individuals. In
the case of common polygenic obesity, the 32 loci combined explain less than
1.5% of the total variation in BMI within the population. Their ability to predict
obesity risk in an individual is therefore extremely limited. This means that
there is currently no utility in testing for these susceptibility genes, and directto-consumer genetic testing for obesity risk should not be recommended.
In contrast, there is utility to genetic testing in clinically suspected monogenic
cases of obesity. In individuals with extreme, early-onset obesity with
hyperphagia, a monogenic cause of obesity should be considered and the
known implicated genes tested. Whilst these monogenic causes of obesity
are individually rare in the population, their combined consequence in
the population is not insignificant, with up to 10% of severe childhood
obesity possibly having a monogenic cause. These conditions represent
very extreme forms of obesity that can result in significant physiological and
psychological morbidity in affected individuals. In the case of congenital
leptin deficiency, a rapidly effective treatment is available. For other causes,
Genetics of Obesity
Whilst the rapid
rise of obesity in
the population
has environmental
causes, whether
an individual
becomes obese in
this obesogenic
environment is likely
to be determined in
part by their genes.
3
whilst no pharmacological treatment is available currently, identification of a
single gene cause of obesity can enable provision of tailored and appropriate
management, including on-going support for weight loss and/or maintenance.
Genetic testing should take place in the context of a specialist obesity service,
an established clinical pathway of care. This should also include provision of
genetic counselling both before and after testing.
There are still many more genetic causes and contributors to obesity to
be identified, both rare single gene defects and common variants. Further
research may bring a stratified approach to treatment. This is not yet the case
in monogenic obesity except in leptin deficiency, and it is a very long way off
in common obesity, although it is important that public health and health care
professionals are aware that for some individuals, weight loss and maintenance
will be far more of a challenge due to increased genetic susceptibility. The
prospect of a stratified approach remains however, and there is much research
and commercial interest. Further knowledge of the genetic basis of obesity
will continue to increase understanding of the biological mechanisms involved
in the development of obesity, and may point to potential pharmacological
targets for future drug development.
4
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
1 Obesity: what is the problem?
Policy on the prevention and management of obesity
focuses on environmental causes. However, as
understanding of the genetic basis for obesity improves,
is it time for a rethink?
Overweight and obesity are defined as “abnormal or excessive fat accumulation
that may impair health”1. Overweight and obesity in adults are commonly
classified using body mass index (BMI), a simple measure of weight-for-height.
BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in
metres (kg/m2). The World Health Organisation defines weight status for adults
according to the following BMI categories:
BMI (kg/m2)
Classification
< 18.5
Underweight
18.5 – 24.9
Normal weight
25.0 – 29.9
Overweight
30.0 – 39.9
Obese
≥ 40.0
Morbidly obese
Overweight is now
the most common
BMI category for
adults in England.
In children, BMI varies with age and sex, making it more complicated to define
weight status. For this reason, BMI measurements are related to centiles on sexspecific BMI-for-age reference curves. The World Health Organisation provides
BMI-for-age growth reference curves compiled in 2007, for children aged 5-19
years2. In England, the National Child Measurement Programme uses the
British 1990 growth reference curves to classify the weight status of children
according to their age and sex, as follows:
BMI Centile
Classification
≤ 2nd
Underweight
85th – < 95th
Overweight
≥ 95th
Obese
1.1
Prevalence of obesity: who is affected?
The 2010 Health Survey for England (HSE) reveals that more than two-thirds
of all men and more than half of all women aged 16 years and over in England
are either overweight or obese (as classified by BMI; 42% of men and 32% of
women overweight, and an additional 26% of both men and women obese)3.
Among those aged 45-65 years, more than 70% are above a healthy weight,
with over 30% being obese. The distribution of BMI in the English population
aged 18 years and over (2007-2009) is illustrated in Figure 1, which highlights
that overweight is now the most common BMI category in this population.
Genetics of Obesity
5
Figure 1. BMI distribution in adults in England (figure from the National
Obesity Observatory4)
Adult (aged 18+ years) BMI distribution
Health Survey for England 2007-2009
Underweight
<18.5kg/m2
Healthy weight
18.5 to <25kg/m2
Overweight
Obese
25 to <30 kg/m2
30 to <40kg/m2
Males
26.8%
Females
24.7%
Females
35.2%
Males
Females
© NOO 2011
1.4%
Females
3.1%
Females
35.9%
18.5
Males
Males
Males
25.8%
1.1%
12
≥40kg/m2
Males
45.4%
0.6%
Morbidly obese
Females
25
30
40
50
Body mass index (kg/m 2 )
Adults are aged 18+ years
The prevalence of overweight and obesity has risen rapidly over recent years.
Over the past two decades since 1993, the proportion of adults in England
who are obese has doubled in men from 13%, and increased by over 50% in
women from 16%3. Extrapolation of these trends in obesity prevalence has
been modelled by the government’s Foresight Programme5. Their projections
indicate that, by 2025, around half of adult males and over
a third of adult
© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. DH 100020290 2010
Data source: Health Survey for England, National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
females will be obese; by 2050, this could rise to
60% of males and 50% of
females. The proportion of the population who are a healthy weight may be
just 10-15% by this time. These projections are illustrated in Figure 2 for adults
aged 21-60 years.
These trajectories are of course only predictions. As with any extrapolation
of past trends to predict a future situation, they rely on assumptions and
are limited by a lack of knowledge of the future. Whilst the ten years of data
the projections are based on show a remarkably consistent trend, we do not
know what will happen in the future. This is particularly relevant to complex
multifactorial conditions such as obesity where the interplay between and the
relative importance of the different determinants are still poorly understood.
Here, ten years of data have been used to predict 50 years into the future, and
the uncertainty will increase with time as highlighted by the widening of the
95% confidence intervals over time.
6
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Figure 2. Proportions of the population belonging to different BMI categories
from each year of the Health Survey for England (marked by dots) and
the predicted future proportions to 2050 shown by the curves, with 95%
confidence intervals shaded (figures from The Foresight Report5):
..
..
..
..
..
Underweight (BMI <20) in green
Appropriate weight (BMI 20-25) in blue
Overweight (BMI 25-30) in red
Obese (BMI 30-40) in purple
Morbidly obese (BMI >40) in pink
Figure 2a. Proportion of males aged 21-60 belonging to different BMI
categories in a given year
Figure 2b. Proportion of females aged 21-60 belonging to different BMI
categories in a given year
Genetics of Obesity
7
Consistent with increasing prevalence of obesity in adulthood, increasing
numbers of women are obese prior to and during pregnancy. Over two
decades to 2007, first trimester maternal obesity has doubled in the UK to 16%6.
An additional 26% were overweight, resulting in 42% of women being above a
healthy weight in the first trimester of pregnancy.
In addition to becoming more prevalent in the adult population, overweight
and obesity are occurring earlier in life. Prevalence of overweight and obesity
in schoolchildren in England is measured annually by the National Child
Measurement Programme (NCMP). Data for 2010/11 show that more than
one in five children in reception year (aged 4-5 years) are either overweight
or obese (13.2% overweight plus 9.4% obese)7. By year 6 (aged 10-11 years),
this has risen to one in three (14.4% overweight plus 19.0% obese). Figure 3
illustrates the BMI distribution of primary school children aged 4-5 years and
10-11 years in England. These figures also show the 1990 reference population,
which highlights the shift of the distribution curves to the right as overweight
and obesity have increased in prevalence over the past two decades.
1.2
Consequences of obesity: why are we concerned?
Obesity is causally linked to a number of health problems, including some of
the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in the UK. These are principally:
type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease (including stroke), some
cancers (oesophageal, breast, endometrial, colon and rectal, kidney, pancreatic,
thyroid and gallbladder8), mental health problems and musculoskeletal
disorders. This results in shortening of life expectancy by 2-4 years in obese
adults who become obese by middle age. In extremely obese adults (BMI ≥40),
life expectancy is reduced by 8-10 years9. It is likely that the current pattern
of development of obesity earlier in life will result in even greater shortening
of life expectancy in future generations. Not reflected in these figures is the
high impact of obesity on healthy life expectancy. The comorbidities are longterm chronic conditions, and obesity is associated with increased levels of sick
leave10.
Maternal obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality for both
the woman and her child11. Obese pregnant women are at increased risk of
miscarriage, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and thrombo-embolism,
and have higher rates of induced labour, caesarean sections and post-partum
haemorrhage. In addition, not only are the babies of obese women at increased
risk of foetal anomaly, preterm birth, still birth and neonatal death, they are
also at greatly increased risk of becoming obese themselves. Childhood obesity
is particularly concerning as obesity tracks very strongly throughout the life
course, and rapid weight gain in both infancy and early childhood have been
consistently associated with being overweight in later childhood, adolescence
and adulthood12. Comorbidities (including impaired glucose tolerance,
hyperinsulinaemia and dyslipidaemia) are now being seen in overweight and
obese schoolchildren from an early age13.
Obesity also has a significant economic impact on society. It has been
estimated that obesity cost the NHS over £5 billion in 2006/0714. In addition
to this, obesity has serious financial consequences to the economy as a whole,
including through sick days and lost years of working life due to premature
deaths15. If the prevalence of obesity continues to rise along the trajectory
of recent years, this will have substantial economic implications, and by
2050, a doubling of the direct healthcare costs of overweight and obesity is
anticipated, with the wider cost to society and business reaching an estimated
£49.9 billion per year (at 2007 prices)5.
8
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Figure 3. BMI distribution in English primary schoolchildren (figures from the
National Obesity Observatory4.)
Figure 3a. Children aged 4-5 years
BMI distribution: Reception children
National Child Measurement Programme 2007/08 to 2009/10 (pooled)
England
-5
-4
-3
1990 Baseline
-2
-1
0
BMI z score
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
© NOO 2011
Figure 3b. Children aged 10-11 years
BMI distribution: Year 6 children
National Child Measurement Programme 2007/08 to 2009/10 (pooled)
England
-5
-4
-3
1990 Baseline
-2
-1
0
BMI z score
1
2
© NOO 2011
Genetics of Obesity
9
The current
government’s
approach favours
interventions that
equip people to make
the best choices for
themselves, and
which are minimally
intrusive.
1.3
Prevention and treatment of obesity in the UK: what are we doing about it?
1.3.1
National obesity policy
In October 2011, the government announced national ambitions for a
sustained downward trend in the level of excess weight in children by 2020,
and a downward trend in the level of excess weight averaged across all adults
by 202016. The focus of government strategy for tackling obesity in recent years
has been to support people in making healthy choices17. Whilst maintenance
of a healthy weight is seen by government as the ultimate responsibility of the
individual, the role of government and wider society is considered as ensuring
that people have access to healthy options by transforming the environment,
and to the information and guidance they need to adopt healthier lifestyles.
The current government’s approach favours interventions that equip people
to make the best choices for themselves, and which are minimally intrusive.
At the individual level, information is provided through campaigns, including
the Change 4 Life social marketing campaign18. Whilst provision of information
carries the risk of increasing health inequalities, Change 4 Life has taken a
targeted approach with more intense intervention for people in the lowest
socio-economic groups. At the population level, the government aims to shape
the environment to make it easier for people to adopt and maintain healthy
lifestyles. They have engaged with the food industry to encourage voluntary
nutrition labelling on front-of-packs, in restaurants and on alcoholic drinks;
reformulation of products to reduce energy density; reduction of portion size;
and promotion of healthier foods in balance with that of less healthy foods.
These are recent strategies for tackling obesity and their effectiveness remains
to be demonstrated.
1.3.2
National guidelines for obesity management
Current NICE guidance on weight management in adults dates from 200619.
with new guidance on lifestyle weight management services for adults
expected in 2013. Recommendations of the 2006 guidance are summarised
below. SIGN, the Scottish equivalent of NICE has produced more recent
guidelines, although these are largely in line with those of NICE20.
..
Summary of NICE recommendations for weight management in adults
..
..
..
10
Health professionals should receive training in raising the issue of
weight with patients, assessing receptiveness, delivering tailored weight
management interventions (including addressing concerns about the
benefits of these), and using motivational and counselling techniques.
Health professionals should discuss a range of available weight
management options with people who want to lose weight or who are at
risk of gaining weight to help them decide what best suits them and what
they will be able to sustain in the long-term.
Weight management programmes should be multi-component and
include behaviour change strategies for diet and activity level. Components
should be tailored to preferences, health status and lifestyle.
Referral to self-help, commercial and community programmes that follow
best practice should be considered, however health professionals should
continue to monitor patients and provide support and care.
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Diets with a 600 kcal/d deficit are recommended in combination with
support and follow-up for maintenance of weight loss. Very low calorie
diets of <1000 kcal/d may be used intermittently for short-term periods by
people who are obese whose weight loss has reached a plateau. Diets of
<600 kcal/d should only be used under clinical supervision.
Pharmacological intervention should only be considered if BMI ≥30 (or BMI
≥28 with comorbidities) after lifestyle approaches, in patients who have not
achieved target weight loss or who have reached a plateau.
Bariatric surgery can be considered if BMI ≥40 (or BMI ≥35 with significant
comorbidities) and if all appropriate non-surgical measures have been tried
but failed to achieve/maintain adequate weight loss for 6 months. Patients
must have been receiving intensive management in a specialist obesity
service and must understand and commit to the need for long-term followup, and be fully aware of the risks of surgery. Bariatric surgery should only
be a first-line option if BMI ≥50.
Summary of NICE recommendations for weight management in children
..
..
Tailored clinical intervention should be considered where BMI ≥91st centile,
depending on the needs of the individual child and the family. Assessment
of comorbidity should be considered for children BMI ≥98th centile.
Interventions for childhood overweight or obesity should address lifestyle
within family and social settings, and should actively involve parents and/
or carers.
Behavioural interventions should include stimulus control, self-monitoring,
goal setting and rewards, and problem solving. Parental role modelling
should also be encouraged.
Children who are overweight or obese with comorbidities or complex
needs (e.g. learning difficulties) should be referred for secondary care
assessment, which should include assessment of comorbidities in the
context of the degree of overweight/ obesity, possible genetic causes, and
family history of metabolic disease.
Pharmacological treatment is not generally recommended in children <12y,
and only in older children in a specialist paediatric setting when severe
physical or psychological comorbidities are present.
Surgical intervention is not generally recommended in children or young
people unless they have achieved or nearly achieved physiological
maturity. Where surgery is considered, it must be preceded by a full
medical evaluation including genetic screening/ assessment to exclude rare
treatable causes of obesity.
Summary of NICE recommendations for weight management in pregnant women
NICE has also published specific guidelines for weight management in
pregnant women21.
..
..
Health professionals should use any appropriate opportunity to provide
obese women with information about benefits of losing weight prepregnancy and should advise and support obese women to lose weight
before conceiving.
Weight and height should be measured and recorded at first contact during
pregnancy.
Genetics of Obesity
11
..
..
Health professionals should advise pregnant women that eating healthily
and being physically active will benefit both the woman and her unborn
child. Dieting should not occur during pregnancy, but women should be
encouraged and supported to lose weight after pregnancy.
Weight should be discussed at the 6-8 week postnatal check. Clear tailored
advice should be provided and women wanting support should be given
details of community-based services. Women should be encouraged to
breastfeed and advised that a healthy diet and regular moderate intensity
physical activity will not affect the quantity or quality of breast milk.
1.3.3
Obesity service provision in the NHS
Commissioning of services for obesity management takes place at the local
level, with local areas deciding upon provision for their population. Specific
service provision for obesity and treatment models followed vary between
areas of the UK, although these should be in line with the guidelines outlined
above. Local obesity care pathways are typically based on a four-tier system, as
illustrated in Figure 4 and described beneath.
Figure 4. The obesity care pathway
Examples of interventions:
Children
Not recommended
Examples of interventions:
Adults
Level 4
Surgical
intervention
Bariatric surgery
Level 3
Specialist obesity
service
Community intervention
e.g. MEND
Primary care intervention
Level 2
Primary care / community-based
weight management programmes
School-based programmes
Breastfeeding
Parental education
National policy
Level 1
Population prevention
and basic interventions
12
Slimming / exercise referral
Primary care intervention
Community dietetics
Pharmacotherapy
Self-funded programmes
Brief intervention advice
Self-help
National policy
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Level 1: Population prevention / basic intervention
Level 1 includes prevention strategies aimed at the entire population, such as
the national Change 4 Life social marketing campaign.
This level also includes assessment of weight and brief advice from health
professionals in primary care. In people who are overweight but not obese (BMI
25-299), who do not have comorbidities, the healthcare professional should
raise the issue of weight and give brief advice on healthy eating, physical
activity and behaviour. They can also signpost these patients to self-help
community-based interventions, which will be self-funded at this level. In
people who have a BMI ≥30 or ≥28 with associated comorbidities, healthcare
professionals should assess readiness to change. If the patient is not ready to
change, they should be given advice on lifestyle and the benefits of weight
loss. This assessment and advice in primary care is described in the NHS care
pathway for the management of overweight and obesity, which gives guidance
to primary care clinicians for identification and treatment for these conditions
in children, young people and adults, illustrated in Figure 522.
Level 2: Primary care or community-based weight management programmes
In patients with a BMI ≥30 (or ≥28 with comorbidities) who are ready to make
changes, healthcare professionals should discuss options for intervention in
order to identify one which suits the patient and which the patient can sustain.
Interventions at level 2 include referral to a community-based slimming or
exercise club or primary care-based weight management services, which may
be individual or group-based. For patients who are considered to be unsuitable
for these interventions, or who need more specialist support, referral to
community dietetics is an option.
All patients referred to community-based options should still be monitored
in primary care. Patients who achieve weight loss should be offered
maintenance and support options. For patients who do not achieve or maintain
weight loss after 6 months, alternative options at this level can be tried, or
pharmacotherapy considered.
Level 3: Specialist obesity service
Patients who are not successful in achieving or maintaining weight loss at level
3, and who have BMI ≥40 (or ≥35 with significant comorbidities) should be
referred to a specialist obesity service. These services are generally consultantled clinics, with input from specialist dieticians and clinical psychologists. They
are able to assess patients and provide more intense and tailored interventions
than at level 2, including low calorie diets, pharmacotherapy and assessment
and advice for surgery.
Level 4: Surgical intervention
Bariatric surgery can be considered if BMI ≥40 (or BMI ≥35 with significant
comorbidities). All appropriate non-surgical measures must have been tried
but failed to achieve or maintain adequate loss for six months, and patients
must have been receiving intensive management in a specialist obesity service
including assessment of suitability for surgery, and must commit to the need
for long-term follow-up.
Genetics of Obesity
13
Figure 5. NHS care pathways for management of overweight and obesity in
primary care (figures from NHS leaflet22.)
Figure 5a. The NHS adult care pathway for primary care.
Adult Care Pathway (Primary Care)
Assessment of
weight/BMI in adults
BMI >30
or >28 with related
co-morbidities
or relevant
ethnicity?
Offer lifestyle advice,
provide Your Weight,
Your Health booklet and
monitor
No
Yes
Provide Why Weight Matters
card and discuss value
of losing weight; provide
contact information
for more help/support
Raise the issue of weight
No
Ready
to change?
No
Previous
literature
provided?
Yes
Yes
Offer future support
if/when ready
Recommend healthy eating, physical
activity, brief behavioural advice
and drug therapy if indicated,
and manage co-morbidity and/or
underlying causes. Provide
Your Weight, Your Health booklet
Weight loss?
No
Repeat previous options and,
if available, refer to
specialist centre or surgery
Yes
Maintenance and local
support options
e
Part of th
YOUR
,
WEIGHT
YOUR
HEAriLeTs H
Se
ASSESSMENT
• BMI
• Waist circumference
• Eating and physical activity
• Emotional/psychological issues
• Social history (including alcohol and smoking)
• Family history
eg diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD)
• Underlying cause
eg hypothyroidism, Cushing’s syndrome
• Associated co-morbidity
eg diabetes, CHD, sleep apnoea, osteoarthritis,
gallstones, benign intracranial hypertension,
polycystic ovary syndrome, non-alcoholic steato-hepatitis
© Crown copyright 2006
274540 1p 60k Apr06 (BEL). Produced by COI for the Department of Health. First published April 2006
14
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Figure 5b. The NHS children and young people care pathway for primary
Children and Young People Care Pathway
care.
(Primary Care)
Assessment of
weight in children and
young people
Raise the issue of weight
Provide Why Weight Matters
card and discuss the value
of managing weight; provide
contact information for
more help/support
No
Child and
family ready
to change?
No
Yes
Yes
Recommend healthy eating, physical
activity, brief behavioural advice
and manage co-morbidity and/or underlying
causes. Provide Your Weight, Your Health
booklet
Progress/
weight loss?
Previous
literature
provided?
No
Yes
Maintenance and local
support options
Offer further discussion and
future support if/when ready
Re-evaluate if family/child ready
to change
Repeat previous options for
management
or
If appropriate and available,
consider referral to paediatric
endocrinologist for assessment
of underlying causes and/or
co-morbidities
or
Referral for surgery
ASSESSMENT
• Eating habits, physical patterns, TV viewing, dieting history
• BMI – plot on centile chart
• Emotional/psychological issues
• Social and school history
• Level of family support
• Stature of close family relatives
(for genetic and environmental information)
• Associated co-morbidity
eg metabolic syndrome, respiratory problems, hip (slipped
capital femoral epiphysis) and knee (Blount’s) problems,
endocrine problems, diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD),
sleep apnoea, high blood pressure
• Underlying cause
eg hypothyroidism, Cushing’s syndrome, growth hormone
deficiency, Prader-Willi syndrome, acanthosis nigricans
• Family history
• Non-medical symptoms
eg exercise intolerance, discomfort from clothes, sweating
• Mental health
he
Part of t
YOUR
,
WEIGHT
YOUR
HEALTH
Series
Crown copyright 2006
4542 1p 60k Apr06 (BEL). Produced by COI for the Department of Health. First published April 2006
Genetics of Obesity
15
1.4
Determinants of obesity: What is the cause?
Obesity is a complex, multifactorial condition. It is ultimately caused by an
energy imbalance, where energy intake exceeds expenditure. However,
this imbalance is underpinned by multiple complex biological, societal and
behavioural determinants, with interactions occurring between these and no
single influence dominating5. A comprehensive systems map of the direct and
indirect determinants of energy balance has been produced by the Foresight
programme, illustrated in Figure 6. This includes seven predominant themes
and illustrates the relationship between individual factors and societal and
environmental factors23.
Figure 6. The determinants of obesity (figure from the National Obesity
Observatory23.)
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Biology: the influence of genetics and ill health
Societal influence: the impact of society, including the media, education,
culture and norms
Individual psychology: including individual consumption and activity
patterns and preferences
Activity environment: the influence of the environment on an individual’s
activity behaviour
Physical activity: the type, frequency and intensity of activities an individual
carries out
Food environment: the influence of the food environment on food choice,
including availability
Food consumption: the type, amount and frequency of foods consumed
The relative contribution of these factors is undetermined and debated.
The rate of increase in the prevalence of obesity in the UK over recent years
indicates an environmental cause at the population level. Our environment
and lifestyle have changed rapidly over the same period of time, resulting
in an ‘obesogenic’ environment. This is one which favours the development
16
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
of obesity by providing high energy foods in plentiful supply and removing
the need for significant physical activity as a requirement of normal daily
life. Humans are adapted for an environment in which food is limited and
physical activity necessary, and in which the ability to store energy as fat is an
advantage for survival24.
As our genetic make-up will not have altered over the same short time
period, humans are susceptible to weight gain in the modern environment.
However, not everyone is obese, and a substantial proportion of the population
manages to maintain a healthy weight despite exposure to this environment.
This suggests that some people are more predisposed to gain weight than
others under the same environmental conditions. Studies of twins have shown
heritability of BMI in adults to be in the range of 40% to 70%, indicating that
genetic differences between individuals are responsible for a large proportion
of the variation in body fatness between individuals within populations25,26.
Human monogenic obesity syndromes have been identified which tend to
result in morbid obesity presenting in childhood, however these are only
present in a small proportion of the population27. More commonly, the genetic
determinants of obesity are likely to be multiple and interacting, and the
cumulative effect of genetic loci identified to date only account for a very small
proportion of this total genetic variation in BMI.
The leading determinants of obesity in an individual are therefore not
necessarily the same as those that are driving the increase in prevalence in
the population. Whilst the rapid rise in the population has environmental
causes, whether an individual becomes obese in this obesogenic environment
is likely to be determined largely by their genes. Genetic variability in weight
within a population becomes more observable as the prevalence of obesity
in that population increases.25 This suggests that the expression of genes
predisposing to obesity is highly dependent on the environment, and that
gene-environment interactions may account for a large part of the genetic
variance in obesity.
Figure 6 could therefore be adapted to illustrate the influencing and modifying
effect of genes on individual responses to the food and activity environments
in terms of food consumption and physical activity respectively, and on how
societal influences impact on individual psychology.
1.5
Summary
Obesity is an increasingly important global problem with high societal costs.
It is a complex multifactorial condition, with both environmental and genetic
determinants, and interactions between these. UK guidelines and policy for
the prevention and management of obesity focus on environmental causes
with little mention of the role of genetics, other than in particularly severe
or complicated cases. This is perhaps not surprising as it reflects the relative
knowledge about these determinants. However, technological advances are
now facilitating improved understanding of the genetic basis for obesity. This
report will synthesise what is known in this area and explore the potential
contribution of public health genomics to the prevention and management of
obesity.
Genetics of Obesity
17
2 Obesity susceptibility genes
A number of single genes have been identified as highly
penetrant causes of severe early-onset obesity, and
more are likely to be uncovered. Less is known about
polygenic contributors to common obesity.
Genome-wide
association studies
have robustly
identified more
than 30 genes
which contribute
to common human
obesity in the general
population.
A literature search was performed on 23 February 2012 to identify reviews
and meta-analyses describing the genetic basis of obesity. The search was
performed using PubMed (MEDLINE)28 and the online database of genomewide association studies29. Further information on genes was obtained from
Orphanet30 and the OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man) database3.1
The full search strategy is included as an appendix to this report.
Studies investigating the association of genetic variants with overall adiposity,
as measured by body mass index (BMI) were included, but those exploring
genetic determinants of the distribution of body fat (waist circumference,
waist-to-hip ratio) were excluded. For monogenic obesity, genetic defects
which cause obesity as a primary phenotype were included, and those causing
more generalised syndromes in which obesity is one of a range of symptoms,
and not the predominant or most clinically significant, were not covered in
great detail.
2.1
Identification of susceptibility genes
BMI is a highly heritable trait, with heritability estimates of 40% to 70%,
however much remains unknown about the identity and biological
mechanisms of the contributing genes32. Whilst common obesity in the general
population has a complex multifactorial aetiology, rare mutations in a single
gene can alone be sufficient to cause very severe and early-onset obesity. Over
the past two decades, candidate gene and family-based linkage approaches
have been highly successful in identifying a number of causal genes in these
monogenic forms of obesity, and these discoveries have contributed greatly to
the understanding of the aetiology of the condition.
However, far less is understood about the polygenic contributors to common
obesity and the approaches taken in the discovery of the monogenic causes
have not identified genes contributing to common obesity33. Common obesity
occurs as a result of numerous contributing and interacting genetic and nongenetic factors. Whilst candidate gene and linkage studies are well suited to
identification of genes which have a large effect on risk, as is the case in the
highly penetrant monogenic forms of obesity, they do not lend themselves to
conditions such as common obesity where multiple variants each exert small
effects34.
The common disease-common variant hypothesis proposes that in common
diseases with a genetic component, such as obesity, some predisposing
variants are relatively common and a combination of these, in association
with environmental factors, is required for the disease to occur35, 36. Under
this hypothesis, disease-associated alleles may be identified by using
18
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
commonly found gene variants such as single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) and comparing cases with controls, which is the paradigm employed
in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). GWAS are a hypothesis-free
method of investigating the association between common genetic variation
and a condition or disease, in which the entire genome of a large number of
individuals (both cases and controls) are screened at high resolution, providing
genomic locations of associated variants.
GWAS are therefore better suited to detecting common disease-associated
alleles with modest effects than the aforementioned approaches37, and over
the past five years through very large and increasing sample sizes, GWAS have
robustly identified more than 30 genes which contribute to common human
obesity in the general population38. However, whilst GWAS identify common
SNPs associated with a condition or disease, these are not necessarily the
causative variants, but are in linkage disequilibrium with these. For identified
SNPs, there is a lack of evidence for associations with expression of the closest
genes, and further investigation is therefore required to elucidate the causal
variant at each locus, and then to determine its function if this is unknown34,39.
2.2
Monogenic obesity
A number of syndromic conditions exist in which obesity is one of a collection
of characteristics, such as Prader-Willi syndrome. These ‘pleiotropic’ obesity
syndromes are complex clinical syndromes in which obesity is one of a range
of symptoms, often including developmental delay and intellectual deficit27.
In these syndromes, described briefly in Table A1 in the appendix, obesity is
not the primary or most clinically significant feature. These syndromes will
not be discussed further in this report, other than to observe that they often
involve hypothalamic dysfunction and hyperphagia is a common feature, with
obesity resulting from the consequent increase in energy intake32. Whilst it
has long been known through these genetic syndromes that a single gene
defect is sufficient to cause obesity in the context of accompanying central
symptoms, the first human single gene defect to cause obesity in the absence
of developmental delay was identified in the mid-1990s with the discovery
of congenital human leptin deficiency in a severely obese child caused by
a mutation in the gene encoding leptin (LEP)40 . Since that first discovery, a
number of additional monogenic causes of obesity have been identified.
Over the past two decades, examination of patients with severe early-onset
obesity has identified a number of highly penetrant monogenic disorders in
which obesity is the primary feature. These are listed in Table 1 and described
in further detail below40, 41. Common with the syndromic forms, the identified
non-syndromic monogenic forms of obesity also disrupt hypothalamic
functions, with most being involved in the control of appetite through action
at points along the leptin-melanocortin pathway. These include variants in
genes encoding the leptin receptor (LEPR), pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC),
prohormone convertase 1 (PC1/3), the melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R), brainderived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor
type 2 (NTKR2)34, 42.
Mutations in BDNF and NTKR2 have also been found to be associated with
cognitive impairment and/or behavioural problems, and may therefore be
considered syndromic in this respect42. The leptin-melanocortin pathway
and the relationship between these genes and their products is illustrated
and described in Figure A1 in the appendix34. A monogenic cause of obesity
separate from this pathway has also been identified: SIM1, a gene involved
in hypothalamic development, has been associated with severe early-onset
Genetics of Obesity
19
obesity, often with accompanying cognitive impairment42. In addition, a large
deletion at locus 16p11.2 has recently been identified as a highly penetrant
form of obesity, with or without cognitive impairment. Whilst the causal
gene has not yet been confirmed, the association with cognitive impairment
suggests a central role, and one candidate gene is SH2B1, which is involved in
leptin signalling43.
It is notable that all of these monogenic disorders affect the central
hypothalamic sensing and control of energy balance40. The central nervous
system plays a primary role in regulating food intake, with the hypothalamus
acting as the central regulator. The hypothalamus receives both long and
short-term feedback on energy intake, expenditure and storage from the
periphery through hormone signals, which it integrates, and then acts through
various pathways to maintain energy balance34. Patients with these monogenic
disorders demonstrate significant increases in appetite and reductions in
satiety, resulting in much higher energy intake than control subjects of equal
body size. In contrast energy expenditure studies reveal that this is not, or not
markedly, reduced in these disorders.
Whilst these monogenic causes of obesity are individually rare in the
population, they represent very severe forms of obesity that can result in
significant physiological and psychological morbidity in affected individuals.
Furthermore, their combined consequence in the population is not
insignificant, with up to 10% of cases of severe obesity in childhood possibly
having a monogenic cause42. The prevalence of morbid obesity (BMI ≥40) in
adults in England is around 2%44. Statistics for children are not readily available
for very severe obesity, but applying the adult prevalence to the entire UK
population (62,218,76145) and assuming 10% of this has a monogenic cause,
gives a figure of 124,438. It is likely that there are more genes still to be
discovered, in addition to further variants in each gene.
20
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Table 1. Single genes in which defects have been found to lead to human obesity
Gene(OMIM No) Encoded product
Function
Location
Population
prevalence
Inheritance
LEP (+164160)
Leptin
Adipocytederived hormone
7q31.3
<1/1,000,000
Autosomal
recessive
LEPR (+601007)
Leptin receptor
Receptor for
adipocytederived hormone
1p31
3% among
severely obese
children
Autosomal
recessive
MC4R (*155541)
Melanocortin 4
receptor
Receptor for
POMC products
αMSH and βMSH
18q22
Up to 1/1,000;
up to 6% of
severely obese
children
Autosomal
recessive /
Autosomal
dominant
POMC (*176830)
Proopiomelanocortin
Hypothalamic
neuropeptide
2p23.3
<1/1,000,000
Autosomal
recessive
PC1/3 (*162150)
Prohormone
convertase 1/3
Processes
pro-peptides
(including POMC)
to active moieties
5q15-21
<1/1,000,000
Autosomal
recessive
BDNF (*113505)
Brain-derived
neurotropic factor
CNS development 11p14.1
Unknown
Unknown
NTRK2 (*600456) Neurotrophic
tyrosine kinase
receptor type 2
Receptor for
BDNF
9q21.33
Unknown
Unknown
SIM1 (*603128)
Transcription
factor necessary
for hypothalamic
development
6q16.3-21
<1/1,000,000
Unknown
2.2.1 SIM1 (homologue
of Drosophila single
minded 1)
Genes involved in monogenic forms of obesity
LEP
Leptin is a hormone primarily secreted by adipose tissue, and circulating
levels are positively correlated with body fat and adipocyte size. Leptin has
multiple actions, but importantly it is a key regulator of energy balance
through its actions in the hypothalamus. Leptin is a ‘starvation hormone’ and
a lack of leptin signals a state of starvation by stimulating or inhibiting the
release of several neurotransmitters. As concentrations increase from very low
levels, orexigenic (appetite increasing) neuropeptides are down-regulated,
including neuropeptide Y, melanin-concentrating hormone, orexins and
agouti-related peptide; anorexigenic (appetite suppressing) neuropeptides are
up-regulated, including α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone, which acts on the
melanocortin-4 receptor, and corticotrophin-releasing hormone46.
Mutations in the gene encoding leptin were identified as causing extreme
obesity in the ob/ob mouse model in 1994, however it was not until 1997
that two severely obese children from the same family were found to have
Genetics of Obesity
21
very low circulating leptin levels, despite very high body fat mass47. Both of
these children, who were from a highly consanguineous pedigree, were found
to be homozygous for a mutation in the leptin gene, resulting in congenital
leptin deficiency. Congenital leptin deficiency is a form of monogenic obesity
characterised by severe early onset obesity and marked hyperphagia. It is
extremely rare, having been described in less than 30 patients worldwide48.
Characteristics of congenital leptin deficiency include severe hyperphagia from
early infancy, and although birth weight is normal, patients rapidly become
obese in early childhood. Additional characteristics include hypogonadism
and impaired T-cell mediated immunity. All characteristics are reversed by
treatment with recombinant human leptin, with weight loss occurring within a
fortnight of commencement of daily therapy49.
In a sample of five children identified with congenital leptin deficiency, the
mean BMI standard deviation score was 6.8±2.1, with a body fat percentage of
52.8±3.2% (normal range 15-25%). These children consumed almost five times
as much energy (relative to their lean body mass) as control children41.
LEPR
A similar phenotype to congenital leptin deficiency is observed in individuals
homozygous for mutations of the leptin receptor gene, with hyperphagia from
early childhood and early-onset of severe obesity. In these patients, circulating
leptin levels were not disproportionately elevated for body fat level, meaning
that serum leptin level cannot be used as a marker. Among a cohort of 300
patients with severe early-onset obesity (BMI standard deviation score (SDS) of
more than 3 before the age of 10 years), prevalence was found to be 3%41.
Mean BMI standard deviation score in a sample of patients with LEPR mutations
was 5.1±1.6, which was significantly lower than those with congenital leptin
deficiency (P=0.005), although their percentage body fat was similar, at
58.0±3.5%.41 Their lean mass was in the normal range for their ages. These
patients consumed almost three times the amount of energy consumed by
control subjects at a ‘free-feeding’ ad libitum meal, although this was less than
the amount consumed by those with congenital leptin deficiency.
Whilst childhood linear growth is normal in patients with LEPR mutations, adult
height is reduced due to lack of the pubertal growth spurt, and hypogonadism
was apparent in all adults studied. Childhood infections were more frequent,
particularly of the upper respiratory tract.
POMC
Leptin mediates its anorexigenic effects in part through induction of expression
of pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC)-derived melanocortin peptides in the
hypothalamus; these activate the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R), suppressing
food intake.53 Functional loss of both alleles of the human POMC gene,
resulting in POMC deficiency, is a form of monogenic obesity, which result in
extreme hyperphagia from the first weeks of life, severe early-onset obesity,
adrenal insufficiency, red hair and pale skin54. Complete POMC deficiency is
transmitted as an autosomal recessive trait and is caused by homozygous or
compound heterozygous loss of function mutations in the POMC gene. In
addition, a heterozygous missense mutation has been found which is present
in 0.9% of children with severe early-onset obesity compared with 0.2% of
normal weight subjects.
22
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
PC1/3
Prohormone convertase 1/3 is an enzyme involved in the processing of POMC,
and numerous other prohormones, including proinsulin and gastrointestinal
hormones55. Mutations in the prohormone convertase 1/3 (PC1/3) gene
resulting in PC1/3 deficiency represent the rarest form of human monogenic
obesity, with only several cases having been identified56. Of three cases
described, two of these were compound heterozygotes, and the third
homozygous for a loss of function mutation. PC1/3 deficiency is characterised
by severe hyperphagia and obesity, with normal birth weight. Severe neonatalonset diarrhoea (due to improper development of the gastrointestinal tract)
has been a characteristic of all three patients. Energy expenditure has been
measured in one patient to be in the normal range.
Although PC1/3 has numerous substrates which are known to be involved
in energy balance, it is thought to be disrupted POMC processing in the
hypothalamus which plays a key role in the development of obesity in PC1/3
deficiency, due to the reduced melanocortin signalling in the hypothalamus56.
MC4R
MC4R mutations represent the most frequent known monogenic cause of
severe obesity, being found in up to 6% of children with this condition27,
and 0.5-1% of obese adults50. In the European population, the prevalence of
deleterious MC4R mutations has been estimated to be 0.5-1 per 1,00032.
MC4R mutations are characterised by either dominant or co-dominant
inheritance, with penetrance ranging from around 30-80%, and varying by
age and specific mutation51, 52. Homozygous mutations are less frequent and
more severe than heterozygous, due to lower residual protein activity. MC4R
mutations present with hyperphagia and severe hyperinsulinaemia and
accelerated linear growth in children.
BDNF
The BDNF gene encodes brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a neurotrophin with
a fundamental role in development of the central nervous system. It has an
important role in the regulation of food intake, with key regulators of appetite
including leptin exerting anorexigenic effects through BDNF57. BDNF mutation
has been observed in one obese child with hyperphagia. In animal models,
homozygous mutations are lethal as BDNF is required for brain development.
BDNF haplo-insufficiency is also associated with the childhood-onset
obesity occurring in a subset of patients with WAGR (Wilms’ tumour, aniridia,
genitourinary anomalies and mental retardation) syndrome, named WAGRO
(the ‘O’ for obesity), and by 10 years of age, 100% of patients with heterozygous
BDNF deletions studied were obese, compared with 20% of those without these
deletions58.
NTRK2
NTRK2 encodes neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor type 2, the receptor for
brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neurotrophin 3. Mutation, observed in
one obese child, has been associated with severe childhood obesity and with
developmental delay, very similar to that seen with BDNF mutations40.
SIM1
SIM1 encodes a transcription factor essential for the development of the
supra-optic and paraventricular nuclei of the hypothalamus. Disruption due
to chromosomal translocation, observed in one patient to date, has been
Genetics of Obesity
23
associated with severe early-onset obesity, developmental delay and increased
linear growth32. Rare non-synonymous SIM1 mutations are enriched in
severely obese patients in comparison with lean individuals, and SIM1 haploinsufficiency has been associated with Mendelian obesity and with a PraderWilli-like syndrome42.
16p11.2
Heterozygous deletions of at least 593kb at locus 16p11.2 have been observed
as a highly penetrant form of obesity, which is associated with both cognitive
impairment and obesity, although the presence in obese subjects without
cognitive symptoms suggests a possible direct association of these deletions
with obesity distinct from the cognitive phenotype. Evidence suggests an agedependent penetrance with all teenagers and adults carrying a deletion being
obese, but variable penetrance in children. Whilst the causal gene has yet to be
confirmed, a likely candidate is SH2B1, which is involved in leptin signalling43.
Although there is a strong correlation between developmental and cognitive
impairment and obesity, these deletions have been detected in 0.4% of a
cohort of morbidly obese patients. Patients with both phenotypes showed a
higher frequency of 2.9%, and those with cognitive impairment in the absence
of obesity had a frequency of 0.6%59. In a case-control association analysis
using sib pairs with lean/normal weight controls, 16p11.2 deletions have been
associated with obesity (Odds Ratio (OR) 29.8, P=5.7x10-7) and morbid obesity
(OR 43.0, P=6.4x10-8)59.
Although heterozygous, these deletions are highly likely to be causal and
represent the second most frequent genetic cause of obesity after point
mutations in MC4R. The deletions frequently occur de novo, but it is estimated
that around 0.4% of all morbidly obese cases are due to an inherited 16p11.2
deletion. The frequent de novo occurrence is likely to mean that there is a
lack of linkage disequilibrium with any marker variants, meaning that if these
are involved in common obesity, they are not likely to be readily detected by
GWAS.
2.3
Common obesity
Whilst candidate gene and family-based linkage approaches have proved
highly successful in identifying causal genes in the monogenic forms of obesity,
these methods have not consistently identified genes contributing to common
obesity33 and only a few of those variants which cause rare monogenic obesity
have been found to be sufficiently frequent in the population to explain
any measureable proportion of the common obesity cases34. Despite a lack
of unequivocal results, mounting evidence does suggest that some of the
candidate genes identified have some small effect on obesity at the population
level. Meta-analyses of candidate gene studies, which have included sample
sizes of more than 5,000 have detected associations with variants causing
biological changes in the genes encoding melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R),
β-adrenergic receptor 3 (ADRB3), prohormone convertase 1/3 (PC1/3), brainderived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), melanotonin receptor type 1B (MTNR1B)
genes and for a functional variant near the lactase (LCT) gene34, 38.
As discussed above, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are a suitable
approach for examining the genomic basis of common conditions such as
obesity. GWAS have been used to investigate several measures of the level and
distribution of adiposity, however the most commonly studied outcome is BMI,
which is available in many large cohorts. Associations have also been examined
with waist circumference and the waist-to-hip ratio, which are indicative of
24
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
central obesity. This report focuses on loci identified as being associated with
body weight-for-height, measured as BMI. Several waves of GWAS have been
performed, with increasing sample sizes resulting in increasing discoveries
with each38. To date, these have resulted in the identification of 32 loci robustly
associated with common obesity. These studies and the identified loci are
summarised in Table 2 and Figure 6. It is important to note that the cohorts
studied have largely been populations of European descent, and associations of
these loci with BMI in other populations remain to be demonstrated. This must
be borne in mind when considering any application of the research.
FTO was the first
gene to be robustly
associated with
common obesity.
In 2007, the first wave of studies identified the FTO gene (fat mass and obesity
associated gene)60, 61. FTO was the first gene to be robustly associated with
common obesity, in parallel findings from two separate publications. One of
these publications identified FTO whilst examining associations of common
variants with type 2 diabetes, but found that the association disappeared
following adjustment for BMI, indicating that the increased risk of diabetes
conferred by the FTO gene was entirely mediated by its effect on BMI60.
The second wave of studies in 2008 identified a second loci associated with
common obesity as near-MC4R (the melanocortin-4 receptor gene). The
MC4R gene was the most likely biological candidate for this association, due
to its known role in the regulation of food intake and frequent implication in
monogenic forms of obesity62. MC4R was identified by using a much larger
sample size through meta-analysis, providing increased power to detect the
association62. This larger sample size was needed as the variant has both a
lower frequency and smaller effect size than FTO. A second study identified
an association of MC4R with waist circumference at the same time as this, in a
cohort of Indian Asians, which despite being a smaller cohort, had increased
power due to higher frequency of the BMI-increasing allele in this population
(36%) compared with white Europeans (27%)62, 63.
The third wave of studies increased sample size still further in 2009, and two
large studies increased the number of genetic loci associated with BMI to 1264,
65
. There was some, but not complete overlap between the discoveries of these
two publications, as illustrated in Figure 6.
The most recent large GWAS, published in 2010, with a larger sample size still,
confirmed all of the previously identified loci, plus two previously associated
with waist circumference, and identified a further 18 novel loci66.
In addition to these population-based cohort studies, two case-control studies
have explored loci associated with severe obesity, comparing cases with
normal weight controls. In a study of morbidly obese adults compared with
normal weight adults controls, associations were found with signals near-NPC1,
MAF and PTER67. In cases with extreme early onset obesity compared with lean
controls, SDCCAG8 and TNKS-MSRA were associated with childhood obesity68.
These studies are also shown in Figure 6. Investigation of the role of the 32 BMIassociated loci in extreme and early onset obesity has been performed using
data from case-control studies. This analysis revealed that 30 of the 32 alleles
showed directionally consistent effects on the risk of extreme and early-onset
obesity. In addition, 23 of the alleles increased BMI in children and adolescents,
and in family-based studies, 24 were over-transmitted to obese offspring66. The
investigators speculate these studies were too small to have sufficient power
to identify all 32 loci. They conclude that their findings show that the effects of
the identified obesity susceptibility loci extend to BMI differences throughout
the life-course66.
Genetics of Obesity
25
Table 2. Major GWAS of BMI (adapted from McCarthy, 201069)
Reference
Sample Size:
GWAS
Major Ethnic
Group
Study Type
Main Findings
Frayling et al,
2007
4,862
38,759
British
GWAS of type 2
diabetes cohort
FTO association with
BMI, obesity and type 2
diabetes
Scuteri et al,
2007
4,741
3,205
Sardinian
GWAS of large
population
isolate
FTO association with BMI
Loos et al, 2008
16,876
75,981
European
GWAS metaanalysis
Association of common
MC4R variants with BMI
Willer et al, 2009
32,387
59,082
European
GWAS metaanalysis
FTO and near-MC4R plus
6 new associations with
BMI: TMEM18, KCTD15,
GNPDA2, SH2B1, MTCH2
and NEGR1
Thorleifsson et
al, 2009
34,416
43,625
Icelandic
GWAS of large
population
isolate
FTO and near-MC4R plus
8 new associations with
BMI: NEGR1, TMEM18,
ETV5, BDNF, FAIM2,
KCTD15, SH2B1 and
SEC16B
Speliotes et al,
2010
123,865
125,931
European
GWAS metaanalysis
Confirmation of
previously identified
loci plus 18 new loci
associated with BMI
including POMC, GIPR
and HMGA1
26
Replication
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Figure 7. Common obesity susceptibility loci (figure and accompanying text from Loos, 201270)
TBX15
near NFE2L3
near ITPR2-SSPN
BMI
Scherag et al.
PLoS Genetics 2010
near GRB14
RSPO3
DNM3
Lindgren et al.
PLoS Genetics 2009
near VEGFA
Body fat %
Kilpeläinen et al.
Nature Genetics 2011
ZNRF3
Meyre et al.
Nature Genetics 2009
near HOXC13
CPEB4
near ADAMTS9
near
near LY86
LYPLAL1*
NPC1
near MAF
near PTER
NISCH
Heard-Costa et al.
PLoS Genetics 2009
Speliotes et al.
Nature Genetics 2010
near PTBP2
TFAP2B
NRXN3
near GPRC5B
NUDT3
FTO
CADM2
near LRP1B
near MC4R
near FAIM2
MAP2K5
near GNPDA2
WHRadj
Obesity
near IRS1
near SPRY2
Heid et al.
Nature Genetics 2010
TNNI3K
Waist
near KCTD15
near SEC16B
MTIF3
near TMEM18
near RPL27A
near PRKD1
near NEGR1
MTCH2
near ETV5
SH2B1
BDNF
near FANCL
near FLJ35779
Willer et al.
Nature Genetics 2009
near RBJ
near ZNF608
LRRN6C
QPCTL
SLC39A8
near TMEM160
Thorleifsson et al.
Nature Genetics 2009
Obesity-susceptibility loci discovered in four waves of GWAS for BMI (blue), in one genome-wide meta-analysis
for body fat percentage (orange), in two waves of GWAS for waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio (pink), and
in two GWAS for extreme and early onset obesity (green). Each Venn diagram represents the loci of one paper,
except for papers that discovered only one locus (i.e. FTO and near-MC4R) for which no Venn diagram has been
drawn.
The 32 GWAS-identified loci are listed in Table 3, together with the frequency
and explained variance of each, and the odds of overweight and obesity
associated with each signal.
Most of these loci are for markers which are not in known genes, meaning
that further work is required to elucidate the responsible genes and thereby
the functions and pathways involved34. However, several of the loci indicate
genes that are highly expressed or known to act in the central nervous system,
which further emphasises, as in the monogenic forms of obesity, the important
role of central regulation in susceptibility to obesity64, 65. Loci are illustrated in
Figure 8 below. In addition, very few of the loci include obvious or previously
studied candidate genes, although several of the loci include or are near to
genes which have established connections with obesity, including MC4R, BDNF,
POMC and SH2B1. Rare variants of each of these have been identified as causing
severe monogenic forms of obesity. A number of the key identified genes are
discussed in brief below.
Genetics of Obesity
27
2.3.1 Genes at loci associated with common forms of obesity
FTO
The first common obesity gene to be identified was FTO, in 2007. Since this
time, the finding has been replicated in a wide range of population and age
groups34. FTO is widely expressed throughout the body, but particularly highly
in the brain, and animal studies indicate particularly high expression in the
hypothalamic nuclei. The risk allele has been associated with increased food
intake and decreased satiety in humans.
MC4R
Mutations in the melanocortin-4 receptor gene (MC4R) are the commonest
identified monogenic cause of obesity, and the identification of association
between SNPs close to the MC4R gene with BMI and obesity indicate that it also
has a measurable role in common obesity at the population level. Variants have
been associated with higher overall food intake and higher dietary fat intake34.
POMC
Pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) is involved in leptin signalling and POMC
mutations have been identified as a monogenic form of obesity.
BDNF
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is involved in leptin signalling and
BDNF mutations have been identified as a monogenic form of obesity.
SH2B1
SH2B adaptor protein 1 (SH2B1) is implicated in leptin signalling, and Sh2b1null mice are obese43, 64. SH2B1 has also been suggested as a candidate gene
behind the association of the large chromosome 16 deletion with extreme
obesity.
GIPR
A role for peripheral biology is suggested by the proximity of GIPR to one of the
loci. This encodes a receptor of gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), a hormone
that mediates insulin secretion in response to glucose intake.
HMGA1
The HMGA1 protein is a key regulator of the insulin receptor (INSR) gene, and
individuals with defects in the HMGA1 gene have decreased insulin receptor
expression and increased susceptibility to type 2 diabetes71. 28
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Figure 8. Genomic locations of proven signals of BMI, obesity and related phenotypes (Figure and
accompanying text from McCarthy, 201069).
TMEM18
POMC
POMC
FANCL
LEPR
NEGR1
TNNI3K
LY86
PTBP2
GNPDA2
STAB1
SIM1
NCR3
HMGA1
VEGFA
TFAP2B
ADAMTS9
TBX15
CADM2
MSRA
NFE2L3
LRP1B
PIGC
PCSK1
GRB14
TUB
PTER
LRRN6C
HMGCR
BDNF
ITPR2
BDNF
PCSK1
MTCH2
SEC16B
MTIF3
FAIM2
HOXC13
SLC39A8
ZNF608
RSPO3
LYPLAL1
LEP
ETV5
SDCCAG8
1
2
3
CPEB4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
X
Y
12
13
PRKD1
GPRC5B
SNRPN
SH2B1
SH2B1
MAP2K5
NRXN3
NPC1
FTO
MC4R
MAF
14
15
16
17
MC4R
18
KCTD15
GIPR
TMEM160
19
ZNRF3
20
21
22
Mitochondrial
Signals are shown according to their location on each chromosome. Genes causing monogenic and selected
syndromic forms of obesity (red triangles) are shown to the left. Common variants that have significant genomewide associations with BMI or multi-factorial obesity are shown to the right: loci implicated in BMI or weight
variation at the population level (solid blue triangles), additional loci identified in case-control analyses of
extreme obesity (open blue triangles), and variants identified primarily because of their association with waist
circumference or waist-to-hip ratio (solid yellow triangles). For the variants shown to the right, the genes marked
within the triangles are indicative of signal position, but in most instances, formal proof that these are the specific
genes responsible for the association is lacking.
Genetics of Obesity
29
30
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Intron
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intron
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intergenic
Near gene
Intron
Intron
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intron
Intron
Missense
Near gene
Intron
Intron
UTR-3
Intergenic
Intron
Intron
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intergenic
Intron
Intergenic
Intron
Intergenic
16q12.2
2p25.3
18q21.32
4p12
11p14.1
1q25.2
1p31.1
2p23.3
16p12.3
16p11.2
6p12.3
15q23
3q27.2
12q13.12
19q13.32
1p31.1
4q24
5q13.3
9p21.1
11p11.2
19q13.32
2p16.1
14q.31.1
3p12.1
14q12
2q.22.2
1p21.3
13q12.2
5q23.2
11p15.4
19q13.11
6p21.31
FTO
TMEM18
MC4R
GNPDA2
BDNF
SEC16B
NEGR1
RBJ (POMC)
GPRC5B
SH2B1
TFAP2B
MAP2K5
ETV5
FAIM2
QPCTL (GIPR)
TNNI3K
SLC39A8
FLJ35779
LRRN6C
MTCH2
TMEM160
FANCL
NRXN3
CADM2
PRKD1
LRP1B
PTBP2
MTIF3
ZNF608
RPL27A
KCTD15
NUDT3 (HMGA1)
Intron
Context
Region
Nearest gene to
associated SNP
(possible candidate)
21
67
52
48
24
59
18
4
20
21
29
67
41
31
63
7
43
80
38
82
78
18
40
87
47
61
19
78
43
24
83
42
Frequency (%)
249,777
192,872
249,791
241,999
198,577
243,013
209,068
241,667
237,404
183,022
242,807
233,512
191,943
216,916
231,729
245,378
227,900
194,564
200,064
196,221
227,950
195,776
204,309
239,715
230,748
198,380
179,414
204,158
197,008
203,600
197,806
192,344
N
0.39 (0.35 to 0.43)
0.31 (0.25 to 0.37)
0.23 (0.17 to 0.29)
0.18 (0.14 to 0.22)
0.19 (0.13 to 0.25)
0.22 (0.16 to 0.28)
0.13 (0.09 to 0.17)
0.14 (0.10 to 0.18)
0.17 (0.11 to 0.23)
0.15 (0.11 to 0.19)
0.13 (0.07 to 0.19)
0.13 (0.09 to 0.17)
0.14 (0.08 to 0.20)
0.12 (0.08 to 0.16)
0.15 (0.09 to 0.21)
0.07 (0.03 to 0.11)
0.19 (0.11 to 0.27)
0.10 (0.06 to 0.14)
0.11 (0.07 to 0.15)
0.06 (0.02 to 0.10)
0.09 (0.05 to 0.13)
0.10 (0.06 to 0.14)
0.13 (0.07 to 0.19)
0.10 (0.06 to 0.14)
0.17 (0.07 to 0.27)
0.09 (0.03 to 0.15)
0.06 (0.02 to 0.10)
0.09 (0.03 to 0.15)
0.07 (0.03 to 0.11)
0.06 (0.02 to 0.10)
0.06 (0.02 to 0.10)
0.06 (0.02 to 0.10)
4.8x10-120
2.8x10-49
-42
4.8x10-31
4.7x10-26
3.6x10-23
-22
6.2x10-22
2.9x10-21
1.9x10-20
-20
1.2x10-18
1.7x10-18
1.8x10-17
-16
8.2x10-14
1.5x10-13
2.2x10-13
-13
1.6x10-12
1.6x10-12
1.8x10-12
-11
3.9x10-11
5.8x10-11
1.4x10-10
-10
9.5x10-10
2.0x10-9
2.8x10-9
-9
3.0x10-8
3.0x10
3.7x10
2.8x10
2.7x10
1.9x10
2.9x10
1.6x10
6.4x10
Per allele change in
BMI (95%CI)
P
Table 3: The 32 SNPs robustly associated with BMI (results from Speliotes et al (201066.)
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.15
0.34
Explained variance
in BMI (%)
1.034 (1.013 to 1.056)
1.023 (1.000 to 1.046)
1.013 (0.996 to 1.029)
1.031 (1.014 to 1.049)
1.030 (1.004 to 1.055)
1.016 (0.999 to 1.033)
1.027 (1.003 to 1.053)
1.073 (1.025 to 1.124)
1.028 (1.006 to 1.051)
1.054 (1.025 to 1.083)
1.020 (1.006 to 1.034)
1.024 (1.005 to 1.045)
1.016 (0.995 to 1.039)
1.035 (1.015 to 1.056)
1.042 (1.023 to 1.061)
1.062(1.025 to 1.101)
1.043 (1.024 to 1.063)
1.055 (1.031 to 1.079)
1.044 (1.022 to 1.066)
1.029 (1.001 to 1.057)
1.045 (1.022 to 1.069)
1.050 (1.023 to 1.078)
1.041 (1.020 to 1.063)
1.085 (1.058 to 1.112)
1.052 (1.034 to 1.071)
1.045 (1.023 to 1.067)
1.072 (1.041 to 1.104)
1.057 (1.031 to 1.084)
1.061 (1.039 to 1.084)
1.094 (1.068 to 1.121)
1.119 (1.089 to 1.150)
1.138 (1.114 to 1.164)
Odds ratio
Overweight (95%CI)
1.032 (1.005 to 1.060)
1.017 (0.988 to 1.046)
1.027 (1.005 to 1.049)
1.029 (1.006 to 1.052)
1.045 (1.013 to 1.079)
1.016 (0.994 to 1.039)
1.048 (1.015 to 1.082)
1.102 (1.037 to 1.170)
1.027 (0.998 to 1.056)
1.085 (1.049 to 1.123)
1.051 (1.026 to 1.077)
1.055 (1.029 to 1.083)
1.016 (0.988 to 1.045)
1.040 (1.016 to 1.064)
1.052 (1.030 to 1.075)
1.098 (1.048 to 1.150)
1.044 (1.020 to 1.069)
1.086 (1.054 to 1.119)
1.069 (1.040 to 1.098)
1.066 (1.028 to 1.105)
1.065 (1.035 to 1.096)
1.085 (1.049 to 1.122)
1.049 (1.022 to 1.077)
1.078 (1.044 to 1.114)
1.069 (1.045 to 1.093)
1.061 (1.033 to 1.090)
1.098 (1.059 to 1.138)
1.079 (1.044 to 1.115)
1.075 (1.047 to 1.105)
1.108 (1.074 to 1.143)
1.134 (1.095 to 1.174)
1.203 (1.169 to 1.237)
Odds Ratio
Obesity (95%CI)
Figure 9 Chart showing frequency of the SNP in the study population (x-axis) against odds ratio of being
obese (y-axis) (results from Speliotes et al, 201066)
Figure 9 illustrates the frequency of the each of the 32 SNPs associated with BMI in the study population (largely
European general populations) against the odds ratio of being obese given the risk allele. This highlights the far
bigger effect of FTO compared with the other loci. It can also be seen that some of the SNPs are highly frequent in
the population, meaning that these variants will not discriminate well between members of the population.
Genetics of Obesity
31
2.4.2 Variability explained and predictive ability of these 32 loci
Taken together, the 32 loci which have been robustly associated with BMI only
explain 1.45% of the total variation in BMI within the European population66.
Given that proportion of the total observable difference in BMI which is due
to genetic differences (the heritability of BMI) is 40% to 70%, this means that
just 2% to 4% of the heritability is explained by the 32 loci. This is illustrated in
Figure 10.
Figure 10. The proportion of population variation in BMI explained by
genetics and by the 32 loci
Total variation explained by the 32 loci: 1.45%
Total variation explained by genetics:
40%
to
70%
Total population variation in BMI:
100%
Despite highly significant associations, the effect sizes of these loci on both
body weight and risk of obesity are small, as illustrated in Figure 10. FTO was
the most easily identified locus as its effect size is largest and the BMI increasing
allele occurs with greater relative frequency in white European populations70.
However, this still only explains 0.34% of the total variance in BMI, as given in
Table 4, which shows how the amount of variability explained increases with
increasing numbers of loci discovered.
The small fraction of variability explained by even the 32 loci together indicates
that the combined predictive ability of the alleles is extremely limited. This
is an important point as direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC) available to
consumers include risk of obesity scores, based on selections of these loci. One
of the major companies uses 11 loci to determine risk of obesity72, whilst the
global DTC market leader uses only FTO73.
32
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Figure 11. Per-allele effect of BMI-associated loci on body weight (shown as bars with scale on left hand
y-axis) and obesity risk (shown as diamonds with scale on right hand y-axis) (Figure and text from Loos,
201270)
N ~ 4,800
Frayling et al. Science 2007
Scuteri et al. PLoS Genetics 2007
N ~ 16,500
Loos et al. Nature Genetics 2008
Chambers et al. Nature Genetics 2008
1.25
1,000
N ~ 123,000
Speliotes et al. Nature Genetics 2010
1.20
800
1.15
600
1.10
400
1.05
200
1.00
NUDT3
near RPL27A
near PTBP2
TNNI3K
near ZNF608
MTIF3
near LRP1B
CADM2
near TMEM160
near FLJ35779
LRRN6C
near FANCL
MAP2K5
near RBJ
QPCTL
near PRKD1
SLC39A8
near GPRC5B
MTCH2
near KCTD15
near FAIM2
NRXN3
TFAP2B
near ETV5
near NEGR1
SH2B1
BDNF
near GNPDA2
near SEC16B
near TMEM18
FTO
near MC4R
0
-200
Increase in risk of obesity per risk-allele (OR ± 95%CI)
1,200
Increase in body weight per risk-allele (g) (mean ± 95%CI)
1.30
N ~ 32,000
Willer et al. Nature Genetics 2009
Thorleifsson Nature Genetics 2009
0.95
Loci are sorted by wave of discovery (first wave in dark blue, second in red, third in green and fourth in light blue).
Data were derived from Speliotes et al, 201066 and additional studies to identify loci are indicated.
Table 4. Explained variance in BMI by SNPs in BMI-associated loci (adapted
from McCarthy, 201069)
BMI associated loci included in the model
Explained variance in BMI
FTO
0.34 %
FTO, near-MC4R
0.59 %
11 loci: FTO, near-MC4R, near-TMEM18, nearSEC16B, BDNF, near-GNPDA2, SH2B1, nearETV5, near-NEGR1, near-FAIM2, near-KCTD15
0.98 %
32 loci identified by Speliotes et al66
(see Table 3 for list)
1.45%
The combined effect of the 32 risk loci has been explored by calculation of a
genetic susceptibility score, derived by summing the number of BMI increasing
alleles, weighted by their effect sizes66. Each unit increase (approximately equal
to one additional risk allele) was found to be associated with an increased BMI
of 0.17 kg/m2, or an increased weight of just 435-551 grams in adults 160-180
cm in height, as shown in Figure 12. Those with a high genetic susceptibility
score (defined as having ≥38 BMI-increasing alleles across the 32 loci) had a
BMI on average 2.7 kg/m2 higher than those with a low-risk score (≤21 BMIincreasing alleles), equivalent to 6.99-8.85 kg in adults 160-180 cm in height.
Genetics of Obesity
33
However, these groups were the very extremes of the population, comprising
just the highest risk 1.5% of the studied population and the lowest risk 2.2%.
The 32 risk alleles all showed directionally consistent effects on risk of being
overweight or obese, with the increased odds of being overweight ranging
from 1.013 to 1.138-fold and the odds of being obese from 1.016 to 1.203
(listed in Table 3)66 .
Figure 12. Combined impact of risk alleles on
mean BMI and obesity (figure
from Speliotes et al, 201066)
29
28
1,000
27
26
2
500
Mean BMI (kg/m )
Number of individual s
1,500
25
≥3
8
–3
7
5
36
–3
3
34
–3
1
32
–3
9
30
–2
7
28
–2
5
26
–2
3
24
–2
22
≤2
1
0
Number of weighted risk alleles
The histogram shows the number of individuals (marked on the left hand
y-axis) within each risk score category (marked as numbers of risk alleles on
the x-axis) and the markers show mean BMI of individuals in each risk category
(marked on the right hand y-axis; with error bars indicating standard error
of the mean). Individuals were from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities
(ARIC) study cohort, a population-based sample of US middle-aged adults
recruited aged 45-64 years.
34
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
2.3.3 Identifying the missing heritability
It has been estimated that more than 250 further loci with similar effect sizes to
the 32 already identified may exist. However, these would together only explain
4.5% of the phenotypic variation, or 6-11% of the genetic variation. A sample
size of almost three quarters of a million participants would be required to
detect 95% of these66.
GWAS identify variants with allele frequencies of 5% or more. The estimation
above suggests that these common variants will not account for a large
proportion of the genetic contribution to BMI66. There is therefore support for a
hypothesis that both common and rare variants contribute to common disease,
and it is likely that sequencing of all known coding DNA (exomic sequencing)
and deep sequencing will identify further variants of interest34.
Heritable changes in gene expression also occur by mechanisms other than
changes in the underlying DNA sequence. These epigenetic effects include
functionally relevant modifications of the genome that regulate expression
but do not involve a change in nucleotide sequence, and include methylation
and histone modification. These changes are preserved when cells divide,
and can be passed down through generations. Environmental exposures
including nutrition can cause these epigenetic changes, and whilst it is
therefore difficult to separate direct effects of the environment on phenotype
from effects occurring via epigenetic mechanisms, DNA-methylation-specific
microarrays and methylated DNA immuno-precipitation and re-sequencing
will further understanding of the role of epigenetic factors34. Parent-of-origin
effects, suggestive of imprinting, have also been linked to common obesity,
and mutations in the form of copy number variants, duplications, insertions,
deletions and rearrangements, which are not picked up by analytical methods
used in GWAS, may account for up to almost one-fifth of heritable variance in
gene expression34.
2.3.4 Variable penetrance across the life-course
Genetic influences on BMI have been shown to vary with age, with heritability
estimates becoming progressively stronger during childhood and decreasing
into adulthood74. In addition, heritability estimates of BMI change appear to be
higher in adolescence than young adulthood.
Whilst individual variants may differ in this respect, the combined effect of 11
BMI-associated genetic variants has been used to examine variable penetrance
across the life course, by creating a multiple allele obesity risk score (including
in/near FTO, MC4R, TMEM18, GNPDA2, KCT15, NEGR1, BDNF, ETV5, SEC16B, SH2B1,
MTCH2). Longitudinal analysis of how genetic susceptibility to higher BMI (as
indicated by this score) influences changes in weight from birth into adulthood
has been performed using the 1946 British Birth Cohort Study (n=2537)74.
The score was found to have a borderline significant association with birth
weight (0.019 SDS/allele, P=0.05), but to be associated with higher BMI at all
time points between 2-53y. The strongest associations were seen at 11y (0.063
(95%CI 0.043-0.083, P=1.06x10-9) SDS/allele) and 20y (0.066 (95%CI 0.046-0.086,
P=8.58x10-11) SDS/allele). At age 11y, those with ≥14 alleles (n=189) had on
average a BMI 1.56 kg/m2 higher than those with ≤7 (n=161). In longitudinal
analysis within individuals, the risk score was only associated with BMI gain
between 2-11y (0.005 (95%CI 0.002-0.007) SDS/allele/y, P<0.001). Association
with BMI later declined by -0.0005 SDS/allele/y (P=0.001). Growth trajectories
by risk score tertile diverged during childhood and converged during later
adult life.
Genetics of Obesity
Genetic influences
on BMI have been
shown to vary with
age, with heritability
estimates becoming
progressively
stronger during
childhood and
decreasing into
adulthood.
35
This means that genetic variants predisposing to higher adult BMI are in
combination associated with greater gains in weight and BMI up to 11y.
However, after this age, they remain heavier, but do not continue to gain
weight more rapidly that those with fewer risk alleles. The number of risk
alleles is also associated with faster height growth to 7y but no difference in
adult height. This is in support of previously established association between
faster tempo of childhood growth and adult obesity. Being taller at 7y relative
to adult height may therefore indicate genetic susceptibility to a rapid growth
trajectory that is associated with later obesity risk.
In summary, the greater gains in weight associated with these loci are achieved
in childhood. Once established, differences in BMI continue to track throughout
adult life. The findings of this study are consistent with others, but it is possible
that penetrance is rising in younger generations, suggesting that the modern
obesogenic conditions may allow genetic susceptibility to greater weight gain
and adiposity to become more visible.
2.5
Summary
The research described in this chapter highlights how much progress has been
made over the past two decades in understanding the genetic basis of obesity,
although much remains unknown. It has been an almost consistent finding
that the identified genetic causes and contributors increase body mass through
central mechanisms driving increased energy intake.
Clear distinction has been made here between monogenic and common
genetic causes of obesity. Whilst a number of single genes have been identified
as highly penetrant causes of severe early-onset obesity, it is likely that
further genes are yet to be discovered, in addition to much heterogeneity
of mutations at each gene between individuals. Less still is known about
polygenic contributors to common obesity, which not only have small effects
but also effects that are complicated due to gene-gene and gene-environment
interactions. To date, only 2% to 4% of the heritability of body weight has been
explained. As further loci are identified at both ends of this spectrum, it is
possible that the clear distinction will no longer be important and a continuum
may become apparent, with oligogenic causes of obesity lying between the
extremes of the rare monogenic and common polygenic forms. In oligogenic
disorders, the phenotype is produced or influenced by two or more genes
acting together.
36
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
3. Genetic testing in obesity
A key application of the discovery of disease associated
genes and variants is that it enables genetic testing of
individuals. This chapter discusses the potential utility of
this application in obesity.
As described in the previous chapter, the identification of genetic variants that
increase risk of obesity has contributed greatly to understanding of the central
regulation of body weight and the aetiology of obesity. A key application
of the discovery of disease associated genes and variants is that it enables
genetic testing of individuals. This chapter discusses the potential utility of this
application in obesity. As the genetic contribution and severity of monogenic
and common obesity vary markedly, these will be considered separately in light
of their ethical, legal and social implications.
A genetic test can be defined as ‘a laboratory assay that is used to identify a
particular genotype or set of genotypes, for a particular disease, in a particular
population, for a particular purpose’75, where this purpose should be to achieve
one or more of the following outcomes76 : reduction in morbidity or mortality;
provision of information salient to the health care of the patient or family
members; and/or assistance with reproductive decision-making for patient or
family members.
3.1
Genetic tests are
evaluated for
analytical validity,
the clinical validity,
the clinical utility and
the ethical, legal and
social implications.
Evaluation of genetic test
Genetic tests are evaluated using the ACCE framework, in which the Analytical
validity, the Clinical validity, the Clinical utility and the Ethical, legal and social
implications are assessed and considered76, 77.
3.1.1 Analytical validity
This relates to how accurately and reliably an assay measures the genotype
of interest in the laboratory, and is highly dependent on quality control at
all stages from sample collection and processing to the interpretation of the
result. It is determined by the analytical sensitivity and specificity of the assay
(its ability to correctly identify positive and negative results as to whether the
genotype tested for is present, respectively). If the assay is highly sensitive,
there will be few false negative results, and if it is highly specific, there will be
few false positives.
3.1.2 Clinical validity
In contrast, the clinical validity of a test relates to how accurately it detects
or predicts the phenotypic outcome of interest. This requires the outcome
to be clearly defined, and relies both on evidence of an association between
the gene measured by the assay and the outcome of interest, and on how
well the test performs in the clinical setting. In addition to the analytical
validity of the assay, the performance of the test is dependent on the clinical
sensitivity and specificity of the test (the probability the test will be positive
Genetics of Obesity
37
From the public
health perspective,
utility is determined
by the test’s ability
to reduce morbidity
or mortality at the
population level in a
cost-effective way.
in those with the phenotype and that it will be negative in those without the
phenotype respectively) and the positive and negative predictive values (PPV
and NPV) of the test (how likely it is the patient has/ doesn’t have the outcome
given a positive/ negative test result). The PPV and NPV are influenced by the
prevalence of the outcome in the population tested in addition to the clinical
sensitivity and specificity of the test, with PPV increasing as the prevalence
increases in the test population78. As prevalence of genotypes and genetic
diseases varies between populations, it is essential that the test is validated
clinically in a sample of subjects who are representative of the population the
test is intended to be used in.
Clinical validity is also affected by two features of genetic diseases:
heterogeneity and penetrance79. The same phenotype may result from
the different variants within the same gene, or from different genes
(heterogeneity). If not all disease-related mutations are known, the clinical
sensitivity of a genetic test will be reduced. If penetrance is incomplete, PPV will
be reduced even if the assay detects the variant with a high degree of accuracy,
since the variant may not lead to the outcome.
3.1.3 Clinical utility
The clinical utility of a genetic test is how likely it is to significantly improve
patient outcomes. This is dependent on the natural history of the condition,
whether or not there is an effective intervention with the potential to benefit
the patient, or if not, whether the information will help reproductive decision
making or other members of the family.
There are several perspectives from which to consider utility80. Whilst clinical
utility is the ability of the test to improve patient outcomes through presenting
options for prevention or treatment, from the public health perspective,
utility is determined by the test’s ability to reduce morbidity or mortality at
the population level in a cost-effective way. An additional concept is that
of personal utility. This encompasses non-medical and subjective aspects,
including the value of the genetic information to the individual, even if no
preventive or treatment options exist, for example for planning or motivation
for behaviour change. The reaction to genetic information and it’s personal
utility to an individual will vary between individuals. Here, clinical utility is
a subjective interpretation, based on what perspective the evaluation is
undertaken from. Whether it is from an individual or a health service provision
level will determine the utility attached to different outcomes.
3.1.4 Ethical, legal and social implications
Genetic testing carries unique ethical, legal and social implications. In addition
to issues common to other medical testing or screening such as the knowledge
that the test will be accurate and will provide information that the individual
being tested wants and which will be useful in their clinical care and guiding
lifestyle choices, genetic testing raises other quite unique issues.
Genes do not only provide information about existing disease, but in some
cases are able to predict possible, or even certain, future disease. Additionally,
discovering carriage of a particular variant not only has implications for the
individual, but also for their family, and for their future reproductive choices81.
For these reasons, genetic testing should be preceded by genetic counselling
to ensure that the consequences of the result are fully understood before
the individual consents to a genetic test. Results should be delivered by a
professional able to give tailored advice for that individual according to the
38
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
outcome. Further issues to arise from genetic testing may be identification of
non-paternity or of incestuous parentage, which can raise difficult ethical and
legal issues for the health professional receiving the results82.
3.2
Genetic testing for monogenic obesity
Although individually the monogenic forms of obesity are rare, those identified
to date together account for up to 10% of cases of extreme early-onset
obesity42, 83, with MC4R deficiency alone being present in up to 5% of severely
obese children40. Among a cohort of over 2000 patients with severe obesity
(BMI standard deviation score (SDS) >3) of early onset (<10y; mean BMI SDS 4.5,
mean age of onset 5y), the identified causes disrupting the leptin-melanocortin
pathway accounted for 7% of cases84. However, many of the remaining patients
appeared to have inherited their obesity in a Mendelian manner, indicating that
further genes remain to be identified. Characterisation of these monogenic
forms of obesity has contributed to the understanding of pathways of appetite
and satiety, and in the case of leptin deficiency, it has dramatically improved
patient outcomes through availability of an effective treatment.
NICE guidance recommends that children who are obese with comorbidities
or complex needs (such as learning difficulties) should be referred for
secondary care assessment, which should include, among other investigations,
assessment of possible genetic causes for their obesity disorders. As obesity
is the primary characteristic of a number of the identified monogenic obesity
disorders, and metabolic comorbidities may only occur as a result of an
extended period of obesity, there may be a case for revision of guidelines for
referral to “children with early-onset severe obesity with hyperphagia” alone,
with appropriate criteria for age of onset and BMI SDS to be defined by clinical
experts. This may aid earlier diagnosis and thus perhaps allow prevention of
resulting comorbidities in these patients.
Choquet and Meyre Genome Medicine 2010, 2:36
http://genomemedicine.com/content/2/6/36
Page 7 of 12
Figure 13. Monogenic gene screening prioritisation during clinical
examination (Figure from Choquet and Meyre, 201042)
Specific features
Low level of circulating leptin
Gene to sequence first
LEP
High rate of childhood infections
LEP, LEPR
Hypothyroidism
LEP, LEPR
General features
Early-onset obesity
Hyperphagia
Hypoadrenalism, jaundice
POMC
Pale skin, red hair
POMC
Hypoglycemia
LEP, LEPR,
POMC, PCSK1,
MC4R, SIM1,
BDNF, NTRK2
POMC, PCSK1
Intestinal dysfunction
PCSK1
High/Tall stature
MC4R
Developmental delays
SIM1, BDNF, NTRK2
Figure 1. Monogenic gene screening prioritization during clinical examination. Early-onset obesity and hyperphagia are general features of
monogenic obesity. Additional and more specific features can be useful to prioritize which gene should be sequenced first.
Genetics differences
of Obesityin intestinal Faecalishowed quantitative
bacterium prausnitzii in obese versus lean children.
Another study conducted with children [133] found that
obesity-predisposing SNPs, and sophisticated methodologies (such as machine-learning approaches) are emerging to make better use of SNP information contained in
39
As there are a number of single gene causes of this phenotype, prioritisation
criteria have been suggested for order of genetic investigations according to
additional specific clinical features, as shown in Figure 13. These additional
specific clinical factors can be used to guide choice of which gene should be
sequenced first42.
A future alternative to this approach would be to use a panel test and sequence
all of these genes simultaneously. As costs of sequencing reduce with
technological progress, this could be both a cost and time-efficient method of
identifying single-gene causes of obesity, and hence the need for a series of
single gene-by-gene tests would be superseded. This approach would enable
more rapid diagnosis and determination of appropriate management and
support for the patient.
3.2.1 Analytical validity
If the testing protocol is performed according to guidelines and quality
assured, and the assay is performed in an accredited laboratory using validated
methods, the analytical validity can be considered to be high.
3.2.2 Clinical validity
The set of eight genes plus the 16p11.2 deletion may explain up to 10% of
extreme early-onset obesity. Multiple variants of each of these genes have
been identified in obese individuals, and it is therefore likely that more will
be discovered in future, in addition to further single-gene causes of obesity.
This means that for individuals who receive a negative test result for obesitycausing variants in the identified genes, a causal single gene defect cannot be
excluded (i.e. the NPV may be low). Due to the high penetrance of these genetic
defects however, identification of a susceptibility genotype is highly likely to
explain the obese phenotype, or lead to obesity if not already present at the
time of testing.
3.2.3 Clinical utility
Primary prevention of obesity in patients with a single gene defect would
require very early testing if diagnosis is to be made before the phenotype
is expressed. As these genetic tests would currently most frequently be
performed as a result of the obese phenotype, the role of genetic testing in
primary prevention will be limited under the current referral and care pathways.
However knowledge of potentially increased susceptibility to extreme obesity
may benefit the management of future siblings or children of the tested
individual, enabling hyperphagia to be recognised and managed from very
early in life, and primary prevention of obesity to be attempted through
education and training of parents.
Secondary prevention of obesity (weight loss and maintenance) is by lifestyle
modification, pharmacotherapy or bariatric surgery, or a combination of
these. In cases of a genetic cause of leptin deficiency, exogenous leptin
administration is a rapidly effective treatment. However, in other monogenic
forms of obesity, no such treatment currently exists. This may not be the case in
future however, and in vitro studies of pharmacological treatment for patients
with MC4R mutations are promising, although in vivo benefits remain to be
demonstrated85.
In the absence of a pharmacological approach, the most effective strategy
for treatment of monogenic forms of obesity is stringent restriction of food
access. This requires full participation of the parents or carers in the case of
40
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
children, and a genetic diagnosis may be important in obtaining support for
this approach85. Whilst restriction of food access is common to management
of obesity regardless of genetic or other cause, the awareness that a child has a
greatly increased drive to feed and that there is a biological cause for this could
be important in the management of the patient.
Research in patients with MC4R and POMC monogenic conditions has
found that they respond well to lifestyle interventions consisting of either a
hypocaloric diet or a multidisciplinary approach including exercise, behaviour
and nutrition therapy. However, a study in those with MC4R mutations has
found failure to maintain weight loss after intervention85. This indicates a need
for a continued plan of care and monitoring for these individuals, rather than
a one-off intervention period. Although these small studies were performed
in just two specific monogenic forms of obesity, as all forms identified to date
result in obesity through extreme hyperphagia and disruption of appetite
and satiety pathways, there may be reason to suspect that the findings may
apply to patients with other single gene disorders. As intellectual disabilities
accompany obesity in some of these cases, this must be taken into account in
tailoring interventions for weight management in these individuals.
Individuals respond
very differently to
discovering that
there is a genetic
basis to their obesity.
Evidence is suggestive that awareness of a genetic cause of obesity may be
important if bariatric surgery is being considered. Whilst bariatric surgery is the
most effective long-term treatment for severe obesity, obesity-susceptibility
genes may modify the response to different procedures differentially85.
Preliminary results from small studies suggest that gastric banding may not be
indicated in monogenic hyperphagic patients, but that gastric bypass surgery
(Roux-en-Y) may be as effective as in non-carrier controls. These operations
are more invasive, but may improve the neuro-hormonal control of satiety
better than restrictive operations. Determining whether there is a monogenic
cause of obesity may therefore be important in guiding procedure choice in
patients being assessed for gastric surgery in future, although further studies
are required.
Knowledge of a monogenic cause of obesity may therefore help to guide
treatment, even where there is no pharmacological intervention, however more
research is needed into the environmental factors which can modulate the
penetrance of these causes of obesity, in order that clear guidance can be given
in treatment pathways.
3.2.4 Ethical, legal and social issues
Obesity is a highly stigmatising condition and the knowledge of greatly
increased susceptibility to the environmental drivers of obesity may lead to
a more sympathetic attitude towards people with obesity, and a reduction in
discrimination against them85, 86.
It has also been suggested that knowledge of the genetic basis of a child’s
obesity may prevent inappropriate action by health or social care, who have in
extreme cases occasionally suggested removal of a child from their parents40.
Consideration must be made of the fact that people respond very differently
to discovering that there is a genetic basis to their obesity. Whilst some
are reported to feel relief at having a medical cause, others feel depressed
at the fact that they have an underlying problem which will not readily be
overcome.86 The consequences of the test results should be explored in full
with the individual prior to them consenting to the test.
Genetics of Obesity
41
3.3 Genetic testing for common obesity
In contrast to monogenic obesity, susceptibility to common obesity in the
general population is influenced by a great many factors, both genetic and
environmental, in addition to interactions between these.
3.3.1 Analytical validity
As above, if tests are performed by accredited laboratories using validated
methods, analytical validity can be considered to be high.
3.3.2 Clinical validity
As only a fraction of the genetic variability in obesity in the general population
has been accounted for, there is a lack of clinical validity of testing for these
SNPs40. The ability of the 32 identified loci to predict obesity is very limited
and whilst a risk score developed from these loci does slightly (although
statistically significantly) increase the predictive ability of age and sex alone,
the effect is very limited66. Additional factors will need to be considered in
developing a method for classifying people at high risk of obesity, importantly
environmental exposure, plus possibly also the adipose tissue transcriptome
and the epigenome, which can both be influenced by nutritional factors,
and additionally the gut microbiome, as the composition of the intestinal
microbiota can influence fat storage42.
Knowledge of increased genetic risk from the 32 BMI-associated loci does
not reliably predict that the phenotype will occur in future if it is not already
present at the time of testing, just as the phenotype may not be a marker of
increased genetic risk. The range of loci currently associated with obesity in the
general population only explains 1.45% of the variability in BMI, or 2% to 4% of
the heritability, and multiple interactions between genes and the environment
add further complexity to the interpretation of genetic results. It is likely
that there are many more obesity-susceptibility genes and variants yet to be
identified, and a role for more of the monogenic causes in common obesity
may be uncovered.
Therefore, as the majority of the heritability of obesity in the general
population is not explained, and due to the strong environmental determinants
and gene-environment interactions, the positive and negative predictive values
of testing for these 32 SNPs will be very low.
3.3.3 Clinical utility
Even if an increased risk score for obesity is discovered, the value of this
knowledge is likely to be extremely limited, due to low predictive values (both
PPV and NPV). Furthermore, it is likely that at the time a test was taken, an
overweight or obese phenotype would already be apparent if the genetic risk
was going to be expressed in that individual, and the knowledge of higher
genetic risk of obesity would not change the advice given to modify lifestyle to
alter energy balance.
It is possible that in future, with further evidence, there may be a role for
genetic information about obesity risk in guiding intervention decisions,
however this is a fledgling area of research and evidence is not robust yet. FTO,
as the first and most repeatedly associated susceptibility gene for common
obesity has been investigated the most in this respect to date. Consistent
with the findings in monogenic obesity, a study of severely obese subjects
undergoing obesity surgery found that subjects carrying the FTO obesity
42
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
predisposing allele lost 3 kg less than those with the common allele. The
association was restricted to those undergoing banding surgery, with no
significant difference in those undergoing gastric bypass surgery85. In addition,
there is growing evidence to suggest that obesity-susceptibility genes may
interact with dietary composition, with findings of a high fat diet amplifying the
effect of FTO on obesity risk. Physical activity can also reduce the phenotypic
expression of the susceptibility genes, with a number of studies reporting an
interaction between FTO and physical activity on obesity risk in adolescents
and adults, and a high level of physical activity being associated with a 40%
reduction in genetic predisposition to obesity, as determined by a risk score
of 12 associated SNPs85. These findings are all consistent with the hypothesis
that obesity susceptibility genes are increasingly expressed in the context of an
obesogenic environment.
Interactions also exist with characteristics other than the behavioural ones
described above. Age modifies the penetrance of MC4R mutations, with the
penetrance increasing with age and with the development of the obesogenic
environment. In contrast, most of the effect of the FTO SNP on BMI gain
occurs between childhood and young adulthood, with the increase being
maintained although not increased later in life, a finding which has also been
made for a risk score of 11 risk SNPs74, 85 . Ethnicity is also likely to be important,
with prevalence and effect of different SNPs varying between ethnic groups.
Further research is needed in this area as the majority of the GWAS have been
performed in cohorts largely of European descent. In addition, whilst there
is a well-known negative association between education and BMI, this is not
seen in MC4R loss of function mutation carriers, but is seen in the case of FTO,
with the effect of the SNP on BMI being restricted to those with no university
education.
3.3.4 Ethical, legal and social issues
There are conflicting theories as to whether and how knowledge of genetic
susceptibility to a condition will influence motivation to change behaviour. On
one hand, known higher risk may increase motivation to comply with lifestyle
advice, and on the other, it may induce a fatalistic attitude and a feeling of lack
of control over outcomes which could de-motivate individuals. It is likely that
this effect will vary between individuals, and it is possible that de-motivation
may be greatest in more socially-deprived individuals due to lower perception
of control. Genetic information as well as general information concerning risk
can be difficult to comprehend, and this is likely to be most the case for those
with the lowest levels of education.
Whilst well-designed research into the effects of genetic risk information on
behaviour change is very limited, there is no evidence to suggest a harmful
effect on average. However, neither is there convincing evidence to suggest
that receiving these results will motivate people to change their behaviours87.
Communicating genetic risk information had no effect on physical activity
behaviour and only a small effect on self-reported diet and intentions to
change behaviour, although there was no evidence identified on actual
sustained dietary changes. This is pertinent as whilst there is no suggestion
at present of testing for common obesity susceptibility genes within the NHS,
direct-to-consumer genetic tests are offering obesity risk scores to consumers.
Whilst consumers receiving information about their risk of obesity were found
to initially rate their risk as higher, this perception of increased risk was not
apparent after a one year period, and whilst they initially perceived an increase
in risk, worry about developing the condition was not significantly increased88.
Genetics of Obesity
43
Principles for direct-to-consumer tests in the UK are clear that the test provider
must not overstate the clinical utility of a genetic test89.
3.4 Summary
Research into the genetic causes of obesity has increased understanding of the
biological mechanisms and aetiology of the condition. However the utility of
determining an individual’s genetic risk of obesity differs between monogenic
and common cases of obesity.
Where a monogenic cause is suspected, knowledge of the causal gene is
important. In the case of congenital leptin deficiency, there is an effective
treatment. In other cases the knowledge of a genetic cause for the extreme
phenotype may be important in addressing the hyperphagia, destigmatising
about the condition, and in case of future availability of pharmacological
treatment.
However in common or polygenic obesity, there is negligible utility of
knowledge of the genotype. This knowledge will not change the approach to
management and it is unclear whether awareness of increased risk will increase
motivation for behaviour change, and may even decrease this. Regardless of
the lack of utility of testing, it is important for public health and health care
professionals to understand and be aware that weight loss and maintenance of
a healthy weight will be particularly challenging for a significant proportion of
the population with an increased genetic susceptibility to obesity.
There remain many more obesity susceptibility genes still to be identified,
both rare single gene defects and common variants. Further research to
identify these may bring a stratified approach to treatment. This is not yet
the case in monogenic obesity, except in leptin deficiency, and is a very long
way off in common obesity. However, the prospect remains and there is much
research and commercial interest in this. Further research will also increase
understanding of the aetiology and may point to potential pharmacological
targets as yet undiscovered. Further research may also strengthen evidence
for a continuum between monogenic and common obesity, with more of
the monogenic genes identified as having a role in obesity in the general
population.
44
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Obesity is an enormous and increasingly important
problem worldwide. It causes significant physiological
and psychological morbidity and mortality, and the
costs to health care and wider society are high.
Obesity is a complex multifactorial condition, with both environmental
and genetic determinants. UK guidelines and policy for prevention and
management of obesity focus on the environmental causes. Although the
heritability of BMI is 40-70%, guidelines make negligible mention of the role of
genetics.
Knowledge about the genetic basis of obesity has been building over the
past two decades, which has contributed greatly to the understanding of
the biological basis of obesity. However it is only in the past few years, with
the employment of new technologies, that understanding of the genetic
contribution to obesity in the general population has increased.
This report sets out
recommendations
based on the current
state of evidence.
However the
application of public
health genomics in
obesity is likely to
expand.
Eight known genes have to date been implicated in the development of severe,
early-onset obesity, in addition to one large deletion. Mutations in these genes
are highly penetrant in producing this phenotype, which results from a greatly
increased drive to eat from very early in life. Common to all of these genes is a
central role in appetite control.
Whilst a pharmacological treatment only exists for one of the known
monogenic causes of obesity, knowledge about the other genes provides drug
targets for possible future development. In the absence of treatment however,
knowledge of a monogenic cause for obesity can still increase understanding
of the prognosis and help to ensure appropriate and tailored management for
patients that acknowledges the challenges of weight loss in these individuals.
Genome-wide association studies in increasingly large cohorts have robustly
associated 32 genomic loci with BMI in the general population, however in
contrast to the monogenic forms of obesity, the utility of this knowledge
for individuals is extremely limited at present, and these loci only account
for 2% to 4% of the heritability of BMI. The growing body of evidence does,
however, open up possibilities for future development of novel treatment and
prevention strategies.
Further research will expand the discovery of novel genes and variants
associated with adiposity, and may also strengthen evidence for a continuum
between monogenic and common forms, with more of the monogenic genes
identified as having a role in obesity in the general population. This will further
improve our understanding of the genetic and biological basis of obesity and
may present new opportunities for management.
Recommendations based on the current state of the evidence as synthesised
in this review are outlined below. However, given the rapid accumulation of
evidence in this area, the application of public health genomics in obesity is
likely to expand in the long-term.
Genetics of Obesity
45
4.1 Recommendations: Polygenic obesity
I. There is currently no utility in testing for common obesity genes.
II. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for obesity risk should not be
recommended.
4.2 Recommendations: Monogenic obesity
I. Children with extreme early onset obesity with hyperphagia should be
investigated using a genetic panel test for genes already identified as single
gene causes of this condition. Failure to find a defect in such a panel does
not exclude a single gene cause as it is unlikely that all causative genes have
yet been identified. Relating this to the obesity care pathway (see Figure 14),
this testing should take place in the context of a specialist obesity service
(level 3 intervention) and an established clinical pathway of care. Criteria for
testing should be determined by clinical experts and informed by a health
needs assessment. This should also apply to adults who meet the criteria if
their obesity was present before the age specified.
II. Patients identified as having a single gene cause of their obesity where
there is no pharmacological treatment should receive on-going lifetime
support to lose weight and then manage their weight.
III. In future, there may be some utility for testing for monogenic causes of
obesity in patients being assessed for bariatric surgery, however this is
dependent on strengthened evidence in this area, which should be kept
under review.
Figure 14. A suggested place for genetic testing in the obesity care pathway
Examples of interventions:
Children
Not recommended
46
Examples of interventions:
Adults
Level 4
Surgical
intervention
GENETIC TESTING
In extreme early- onset
obesity (age & adiposity
criteria to be determined)
Level 3
Specialist obesity
service
Community intervention
e.g. MEND
Primary care intervention
Level 2
Primary care / community-based
weight management programmes
School-based programmes
Breastfeeding
Parental education
National policy
Level 1
Population prevention
and basic interventions
Bariatric surgery
GENETIC TESTING
In adults meeting determined
testing
criteria in childhood
Slimming / exercise referral
Primary care intervention
Community dietetics
Pharmacotherapy
Self-funded programmes
Brief intervention advice
Self-help
National policy
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
References
1. WHO. Obesity and overweight. Fact sheet No.311. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/
en/2012 [Accessed 05 February 2012].
2. World Health Organisation. BMI-for-age (5-19 years): Charts. http://www.who.int/growthref/who2007_bmi_
for_age/en/index.html. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2007 [Accessed 09 July 2012].
3. NHS Information Centre. Health Survey for England 2010. Trends commentary.: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/
webfiles/publications/003_Health_Lifestyles/HSE2010_REPORT/HSE2010_Trends_commentary.pdf; 2010
[Accessed 12 January 2012].
4. http://www.NOO.org.uk [Accessed 09 July 2012].
5. Foresight. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. Project Report. London, UK: Government Office for Science;
2007.
6. Heslehurst N, Rankin J, Wilkinson J, Summerbell C. A nationally representative study of maternal obesity in
England, UK: trends in incidence and demographic inequalities in 619 323 births, 1989-2007. International
Journal of Obesity. 2010; 34(3):420-8.
7. NHS Information Centre. National Child Measurement Programme: England 2010/11 school year. http://www.
ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/003_Health_Lifestyles/ncmp 2010-11/NCMP_2010_11_Report.pdf; 2011
[Accessed 12 January 2012].
8. National Cancer Institute. Obesity and cancer risk. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/
obesity [Accessed 05 February 2012].
9. National Observatory Observatory. Briefing note: Obesity and life expectancy. Oxford, UK: NOO; 2010.
10. Neovius K, Johansson K, Kark M, Neovius M. Obesity status and sick leave: a systematic review. Obesity
Reviews. 2009; 10(1):17-27.
11. CEMACH. Saving Mothers' Lives 2003-2005. London, UK: CEMACH; 2007.
12. Rooney B, Mathiason M, Schauberger C. Predictors of obesity in childhood, adolescence and adulthood in a
birth cohort. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2011; 15(8):1166-75.
13. Bell LM, Curran JA, Byrne S, Roby H, Suriano K, Jones TW, et al. High incidence of obesity co-morbidities in
young children: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2011; 47(12):911-7.
14. Scarborough P, Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, Allender S, Foster C, Rayner M. The economic burden of ill
health due to diet, physical inactivity, smoking, alcohol and obesity in the UK: an update to 2006-7 NHS costs.
Journal of Public Health. 2011; 33(4):527-35.
15. National Audit Office. Tackling Obesity in England. London, UK: TSO; 2001.
16. Department of Health. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A call to action on obesity in England. London, UK: HM
Government2011.
17. Cross-Government Obesity Unit. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Cross-Government Strategy for England.
London, UK: HM Government; 2008.
18. http://www.nhs.uk/change4life/ [Accessed 09 July 2012].
19. NICE. Obesity: The prevention, identification and management of overweight and obesity in adults and
children. Full Guidance CG43. London, UK: NICE; 2006.
20. SIGN. Management of obesity. Edinburgh, UK: SIGN; 2010.
21. NICE. Weight management before, during and after pregnancy. PH27. London, UK: NICE; 2010.
22. NHS. Care pathway for the management of obesity. NHS: London, UK; 2006.
Genetics of Obesity
47
23. National Observatory Observatory. Causes of obesity. http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/causes.
NOO; 2010 [Accessed 05 February 2012].
24. Ogden CL, Yanovski SZ, Carroll MD, Flegal KM. The epidemiology of obesity. Gastroenterology. 2007;
132:2087-102.
25. Wardle J, Carnell S, Haworth CMA, Plomin R. Evidence for a strong genetic influence on childhood adiposity
despite the force of the obesogenic environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008; 87:398-404.
26. Rokholm B, Silventoinen K, Angquist L, Skytthe A, Kyvik KO, Sorensen TIA. Increased genetic variance of BMI
with a higher prevalence of obesity. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6):e20816.
27. O’Rahilly S, Farooqi S, Yeo GSH, Challis BG. Minireview: Human obesity – lessons from monogenic disorders.
Endocrinology. 2003; 1414(9):3757-64.
28. http://www.pubmed.org [Accessed 05 February 2012].
29. http://www.genome.gov/gwas [Accessed 05 February 2012].
30. http://www.orpha.net [Accessed 05 February 2012].
31. http://www.omim.org [Accessed 05 February 2012].
32. Phan-Hug F, Beckmann JS, Jacquemont S. Genetic testin in patients with obesity. Best practice and Research
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2012; 26:133-43.
33. Saunders CL, Chiodini BD, Sham P, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide linkage studies in BMI and obesity.
Obesity. 2007; 15(9):2263-75.
34. Walley AJ, Asher JE, Froguel P. The genetic contribution to non-syndromic human obesity. . Nature Review
Genetics. 2009; 10 431-42.
35. Shields R. Common Disease: are causative alleles common or rare? PLoS Biology. 2011; 9(1):e1001009.
36. Hemminki K FAaBJ. The ‘common disease-common variant’ hypothesis and familial risks. PLoS One. 2008;
3(6):e2504.
37. Iles MM. What can genome-wide association studies tell us about the genetics of common disease? . PLoS
Genetics. 2008; 4(2):e33.
38. Loos RJF. The genetic determinants of common obesity-susceptibility. In: Symonds ME, editor. Adipose Tissue
Biology: Springer; 2012. p. 317-78.
39. Shuldiner AR. Obesity genes and gene-environment-behaviour interactions: recommendations for a way
forward Obesity. 2008; 16(Suppl.3):S79-S81.
40. O’Rahilly S. Human genetics illuminates the paths to metabolic disease. Nature. 2009; 462(19):307-14.
41. Farooqi IS, Wangenteen T, Collins S, et al. Clinical and molecular genetic spectrum of congenital deficiency of
the leptin receptor. New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 356(3):237-47.
42. Choquet H, Meyre D. Genomic insights into early onset obesity. Genome Medicine 2010; 2:36-47.
43. Li Z, Zhou Y, Carter-Su C, Myers MG, Rui L. SH2B1 enhances leptin signaling by both janus kinase 2 tyr 813
phosphorylation-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Molecular Endocrinology. 2007; 21(9):2270-81.
44. NHS Information Centre. The Health Survey for England - 2008 trend tables. London, UK: Health and Social
Care Information Centre; 2009.
45. World Bank. 2010 Mid-year population estimates. 2010.
46. Paracchini V, Pedotti P, Taioli E. Genetics of leptin and obesity: A HuGE review. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 2005; 162:101-14.
47. Montague CT, Farooqi IS, Whitehead JP, et al. Congenital leptin deficiency is associated with severe earlyonset obesity in humans. Nature. 1997; 387:903-8.
48
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
48. Orphanet. Obesity due to congenital leptin deficiency http://www.orpha.net/ [Accessed 08 May 2012].
49. Farooqi IS, Matarese G, Lord GM, et al. Beneficial effects of leptin on obesity, T cell hyporesponsiveness
and neuroendocrine/ metabolic dysfunction of human congenital leptin deficiency. Journal of Clinical
Investigation. 2002; 110(8):1093-103.
50. Orphanet. Obesity due to melanocortin-4 receptor deficiency http://www.orpha.net/. [Accessed 08 May
2012].
51. Farooqi IS, Keogh JM, Yeo GSH, Lank EJ, Cheetham T, O’Rahilly S. Clinical spectrum of obesity and mutations in
the melanocortin 4 receptor gene. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003; 348:1085-95.
52. Stutzmann F, Tan K, Vatin V, et al. Prevalence of melanocortin-4 receptor deficiency in Europeans and their
age-dependent penetrance in multigenerational pedigrees. Diabetes. 2008; 57(9):2511-8.
53. Challis BG, Pritchard LE, Creemers JWM, et al. A missense mutation disrupting a dibasic prohormone
processing site in pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) increases susceptibility to early-onset obesity through a
novel molecular mechanism. Human Molecular Genetics. 2002; 11(17):1997-2004.
54. Orphanet. Obesity due to pro-opiomelanocortin deficiency http://orpha.net/ [Accessed 08 May 2012].
55. Orphanet. Obesity due to prohormone convertase 1 deficiency http://orpha.net/ [Accessed 08 May 2012].
56. Farooqi IS, Volders K, Stanhope R, et al. Hyperphagia and early-onset obesity due to a novel homozygous
missense mutation in prohormone convertase 1/3. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2007;
92(9):3369.
57. Rosas-Vargas H, Martinez-Ezquerro JD, Bienvenu T. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor, food intake regulation
and obesity. Archives of Medical Research. 2011; 42(6):482-94.
58. Han JC, Liu QR, Jones MP, et al. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor and obesity in the WAGR syndrome. New
England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 359.
59. Walters RG, Jacquemont S, Valsesia A, et al. A novel highly penetrant form of obesity due to microdeletions on
chromosome 16p11.2. Nature. 2010; 463(7281):671-5.
60. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, et al. A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass
indes and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science. 2007; 316(5826):889-94.
61. Scuteri A, Sanna S, Chen WM, et al. Genome-wide association scan shows genetic variants in the FTO gene are
associated wth obesity-related traits. PLoS Genetics. 2007; 3(7):e115.
62. Loos RJF, Lindgren CM, Li S, et al. Common variants near MC4R are associated with fat mass, weight and risk of
obesity. Nature Genetics. 2008; 40(6):768-57.
63. Chambers JC, Elliott P, Zabaneh D, et al. Common genetic variation near MC4R is associated with waist
circumference and insulin resistance. Nature Genetics. 2008; 40(6):716-8.
64. Willer CJ, Speliotes EK, Loos RJF, et al. Six new loci associated with body mass index highlight neuronal
influence on nody weight regulation. Nature Genetics. 2009; 41(1):25-34.
65. Thorleifsson G, Walters GB, Gudbjartsson DF, et al. Genome-wide association yields new sequence variants at
seven loci that associate with measures of obesity. Nature Genetics. 2009; 41(1):18-24.
66. Speliotes EK, Willer CJ, Berndt SI, et al. Association analyses of 249,769 individuals reveal 18 new loci
associated with body mass index. Nature Genetics. 2010; 42(11):937-48.
67. Meyre D, Delplanque J, Chevre JC, et al. Genome-wide association study for early-onset and morbid adult
obesity identifies three new risk loci in European populations. Nature Genetics. 2009; 41(2):157-9.
68. Scherag A, Dina C, Hinney A, et al. Two new loci for body-weight regulation identified in a joint analysis of
genome-wide association studies for early-onset extreme obesity in French and German study groups. PLoS
Genetics. 2010; 6(4):e1000916.
Genetics of Obesity
49
69. McCarthy MI. Genomics, type 2 diabetes and obesity. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363(24):233950.
70. Loos RJF. Genetic determinants of common obesity and their value in prediction. Best Practice Research in
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2012; 26(2):211-26.
71. Chiefari E, Nevolo MT, Arcidiacono B, et al. HMGA1 is a novel downstream nuclear target of the insulin
receptor signalling pathway. Scientific Reports. 2011; 2:article 251.
72. http://demo.decodeme.com/health-watch/details/OBES [Accessed 16 June 2012].
73. http://www.23andme.com/health/Obesity/techreport/ [Accessed 16 June 2012].
74. Elks CE, Loos RJF, Hardy R, et al. Adult obesity susceptibility variants are associated with greater childhood
weight gain and a faster tempo of growth: the 1946 British Birth Cohort Study. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition. 2012; 95(5):1150-6.
75. Zimmern R, Kroese M. The evaluation of genetic tests. Public Health. 2007; 29(3):246-50.
76. Burke W, Zimmern R. Moving beyond ACCE: An explanded framework for genetic test evaluation. Cambridge,
UK: PHG Foundation2007.
77. CDC. Genomic testing: ACCE model process for evaluating genetic tests. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/
gtesting/ACCE/ [Accessed 12 June 2012].
78. Lalkhen AG. Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and
Pain. 2008; 8(6):221-3.
79. National Institutes of Health aJ. Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States: Final report
of the Task Force on Genetic Testing. Chapter 2. http://www.genome.gov/10001733 [Accessed 12 June 2012].
80. Bunnik EM, Schermer MHN, Janssens ACJW. Personal genome testing: Test characteristics to clarify the
discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues. BMC Medical Ethics. 2011; 12:11.
81. ACOG Committee on Ethics. Ethical issues in genetic testing. ACOG Committee Opinion no.410. Obstetrics
and Gynecology. 2008; 111:1495-502.
82. Schaaf CP, Scott DA, Wiszniewska J, Beaudet AL. Identification of incestuous parental relationships by SNPbased DNA microarrays. Lancet. 2011; 377:555-6.
83. Blakemore AIF, Froguel P. Investigation of Mendelian forms of obesity holds out the prospect of personalized
medicine. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010; 1214:180-9.
84. Farooqi IS, O’Rahilly S. Genetics of obesity in humans. Endocrine Reviews. 2006; 27(7):710-8.
85. Choquet H, Meyre D. Genetics of obesity: what have we learned? Current Genomics. 2011; 12(3):169-79.
86. O’Rahilly S. Translating metabolic biochemistry into the clinic: an interview with Steve O’Rahilly. Disease
Models and Mechanisms. 2011; 4:141-4.
87. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on
risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010; Issue 10. Art.No:CD007275.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007275.pub2.
88. James KM, Cowl CT, Tilburt JC, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk
perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clinic
Proceedings. 2011; 86(10):933-40.
89. Human Genetics Commission. A common framework of principles for direct-to-consumer genetic testing
services. London, UK: Human Genetics Commission; 2010.
50
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Appendix
Literature search strategy and results
1. GENETIC
Date: 12 02 17 Results: 2,660,575
(("genetic"[All Fields]) OR ("gene"[All Fields]) OR ("genotype"[MeSH Terms] OR "genotype"[All Fields] OR
"genotypic"[All Fields] OR "genotypes"[All Fields]) OR ("alleles"[MeSH Terms] OR "alleles"[All Fields] OR "allele"[All
Fields] OR "allelic"[All Fields]) OR ("genetic variation"[MeSH Terms]) OR ("polymorphism, genetic"[MeSH
Terms] OR ("polymorphism"[All Fields] AND "genetic"[All Fields]) OR "genetic polymorphism"[All Fields] OR
"polymorphism"[All Fields]) OR ("genomics"[MeSH Terms] OR "genomics"[All Fields]) OR ("Genetic Predisposition
to Disease"[All Fields]) OR (“Heritability”[All Fields]) OR ("familial"[All Fields] OR "family"[All Fields]) OR
(“inherited”[All Fields] OR “inheritance”[All Fields])(
2. OBESITY
Date: 12 02 17 Results: 574,896
(("obesity"[MeSH Terms] OR "obesity"[All Fields] OR “obese”[All Fields]) OR ("body weight"[MeSH Terms] OR
("body"[All Fields] AND "weight"[All Fields]) OR "body weight"[All Fields]) OR ("body weights and measures"[MeSH
Terms] OR ("body"[All Fields] AND "weights"[All Fields] AND "measures"[All Fields]) OR "body weights and
measures"[All Fields] OR “BMI”[All Fields]) OR
("body composition"[MeSH Terms] OR ("body"[All Fields] AND "composition"[All Fields]) OR "body
composition"[All Fields]) OR ("body weight changes"[All Fields] OR "body weight change"[All Fields]))
3. GENETICS (AND) OBESITY
Date: 12 02 17 Results: 72,118
4. (3) ENGLISH ONLY
Date: 12 02 17 Results: 67,595
5. (4) (AND) ("Review" OR "Meta-analysis") [All Fields]
Date: 12 02 17 Results: 7,753
((((("genetic"[All Fields]) OR ("gene"[All Fields]) OR ("genotype"[MeSH Terms] OR "genotype"[All Fields] OR
"genotypic"[All Fields] OR "genotypes"[All Fields]) OR ("alleles"[MeSH Terms] OR "alleles"[All Fields] OR "allele"[All
Fields] OR "allelic"[All Fields]) OR ("genetic variation"[MeSH Terms]) OR ("polymorphism, genetic"[MeSH
Terms] OR ("polymorphism"[All Fields] AND "genetic"[All Fields]) OR "genetic polymorphism"[All Fields] OR
"polymorphism"[All Fields]) OR ("genomics"[MeSH Terms] OR "genomics"[All Fields]) OR ("Genetic Predisposition
to Disease"[All Fields]) OR ("Heritability"[All Fields]) OR ("familial"[All Fields] OR "family"[All Fields]) OR
("inherited"[All Fields] OR "inheritance"[All Fields]))) AND (("obesity"[MeSH Terms] OR "obesity"[All Fields] OR
"obese"[All Fields]) OR ("body weight"[MeSH Terms] OR ("body"[All Fields] AND "weight"[All Fields]) OR "body
weight"[All Fields]) OR ("body weights and measures"[MeSH Terms] OR ("body"[All Fields] AND "weights"[All
Fields] AND "measures"[All Fields]) OR "body weights and measures"[All Fields] OR "BMI"[All Fields]) OR ("body
composition"[MeSH Terms] OR ("body"[All Fields] AND "composition"[All Fields]) OR "body composition"[All
Fields]) OR ("body weight changes"[All Fields] OR "body weight change"[All Fields])) AND (English[lang]))) AND
(review OR meta-analysis)
Genetics of Obesity
51
52
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Majority sporadic; paternal locus absent
due to deletion in 75% of cases, or
the entire paternal chromosome 15
lost due to presence of two maternal
chromosomes 15 in 25% of cases;
familial recurrence is rare.
X-linked dominant
Autosomal dominant; whether hormone
resistance is exhibited is determined
by the parental origin of the mutation,
with an excess of maternal transmission
suggesting genomic imprinting is
involved in the expression of the
disorder. Full expression of the disorder
has been seen maternally transmitted
cases, with partial expression in
paternally transmitted.
Autosomal recessive
Prader-Willi Syndrome
Fragile X Syndrome
Albright hereditary
osteodystrophy
(Pseudohypoparathyroidism type Ia)
Alstrom Syndrome
Table A1 continued overleaf
Mechanism of inheritance/ occurrence
Syndrome
Table A1. Pleiotropic obesity syndromes
Heterozygous loss-of-function
mutation in the GNAS1 gene,
which is under parental
imprinting. This encodes the
alpha-stimulatory subunit of
the intracellular G protein,
which stimulates production of
cAMP under certain physiologic
conditions.
ALMS1
20q13.2
2p13.1
Wide ranging manifestations including
multiple hormone resistance; short
stature; obesity; rounded face;
subcutaneous ossifications and
characteristic shortening and widening
of long bones in the hands and feet;
mental retardation in some patients.
Many features associated with pseudohypoparathyroidism (resistance to PTH).
Multi-systemic ciliopathy characterised
by cone-rod dystrophy, hearing
loss, obesity, insulin resistance and
hyperinsulinaemia, type 2 diabetes
mellitus, dilated cardiomyopathy
and progressive hepatic and renal
dysfunction.
FMR1
Xq27.3
Deletion of paternal copies of
the imprinted SNRPN gene,
the necdin (NDN) gene, and
possibly others with this region.
15q11.2-q13
Severe hyperphagia 5-13y; diminished
foetal activity; obesity; muscular
hypotonia; mental retardation;
short stature; hypogonadotrophic
hypogonadism; small hands and feet.
Syndrome is clinically and genetically
heterogeneous.
Mild to severe intellectual deficit which
may be associated with behavioural
disorders and characteristic physical
features; 30% of adolescents with
obesity.
Gene
Locus
Clinical features
1-9/1,000,000
1-9/1,000,000
1-5/10,000
1-5/10,000
Population
Prevalence
Genetics of Obesity
53
Mechanism of inheritance/occurrence
Autosomal recessive with a modifier of
penetrance; oligogenic in some cases
(some forms require an additional
mutation in a 2nd locus); genetically
heterogeneous.
Autosomal recessive
X-linked recessive
X-linked recessive
X-linked recessive
Prader-Willi-like phenotype, symptoms
including early onset obesity and
reduced adult height.
Syndrome
Bardet-Biedl syndrome
Cohen Syndrome
Mehmo Syndrome
Wilson-Turner Syndrome
Borjeson-ForssmanLehmann Syndrome
Maternal uniparental
disomy chromosome 14
BBS5
ARL6
ARL6
BBS7
BBS12
PTHB1
TMEM67
TRIM32
BBS12
BBS10
CEP290
TTC8
BBS4
BBS2
MKS1
MKKS
COH1
Unknown
Unknown
2q31.1
3q11.2
3q11.2
4q27
4q27
7p14.3
8q22.1
9q33.1
11q13.2
12q21.2
12q21.32
14q31.3
15q24.1
16q12.2
17q22
20p12.2
8q22-23
Xp21.1-22.13
Xp21.1-22
14
Intellectual disabilties, hypogonadism,
gynecomastia and obesity.
Intellectual deficit, obesity,
gynecomastia, speech difficulties,
tapering fingers and small feet.
Severe intellectual deficit, epilepsy,
microcephaly, hypogenitalism and
obesity.
-
Unknown
PHF6
C2orf86
2p15
Xq26-27
CCDC28B
1p35.1
Ciliopathy with multisystem
involvement, characterised by a
combination of clinical signs: obesity,
pigmentary retinopathy, post-axial
polydactyly, polycystic kidneys,
hypogenitalism, learning disabilities.
Clinical expression is variable but most
patients manifest the majority of signs
during the disease course.
Obesity, hypotonia, intellectual deficit,
characteristic craniofacial dysmorphism
and abnormalities of the hands and feet.
Gene
Locus
Clinical features
Unknown
Unknown
<1/1,000,000
<1/1,000,000
<1/1,000,000
1-9/1,000,000
Population
prevalence
Appendix
Figure A1. The leptin-melanocortin pathway (figure and text from Walley, 200934)
Leptin released from adipose tissue binds to leptin receptors (LEPR) on agouti-related protein (AGRP)producing neurones, and pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC)-producing neurones in the arcuate nucleus (ARC) of
the hypothalamus. Leptin binding inhibits AGRP production and stimulates POMC production. POMC then
undergoes post-translational modification to generate a range of peptides, including α-, β- and γ-melanocytestimulating hormones (MSH). Prohormone convertase 1/3 is involved in this post-translational processing
(PC1/3, not shown here). AGRP and α-MSH compete to bind to the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R), with AGRP
binding suppressing activity and α-MSH binding stimulating MC4R activity. Increased MC4R activity generates
an anorexigenic (appetite suppressing) signal, whilst decreased activity stimulates an orexigenic signal (appetite
stimulating). Signals from MC4R govern food intake through secondary effector neurones, which lead to higher
cortical centres. This process involves brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and neurotrophic tyrosine kinase
receptor type 2 (NTRK2, also known as tropomyosin-related kinase B, TRKB)
54
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Genetics of Obesity
55
The PHG Foundation is a forward-looking policy think-tank and service
development NGO based in Cambridge, UK. Our mission is making science work
for health. We work to identify the best opportunities for 21st century genomic
and biomedical science to improve global health, and to promote the effective
and equitable translation of scientific innovation into medical and public health
policy and practice.
We provide knowledge, evidence and ideas to stimulate and direct wellinformed debate on the potential and pitfalls of key biomedical developments,
and to inform and educate stakeholders – policy makers, health professionals
and public alike. We also provide expert research, analysis, health services
planning and consultancy services for governments, health systems, and other
non-profit organisations.
56
The Application of Public Health Genomics to the Prevention and Management of Obesity in the UK
Genetics of Obesity
57
PHG Foundation
2 Worts Causeway
Cambridge
CB1 8RN
T +44 (0) 1223 740 200
F +44 (0) 1223 740 892
ISBN 978-1-907198-11-3
www.phgfoundation.org